( 1 ) THIS application has been filed on behalf of the Union of India under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the Order dated 10. 3. 1999 and 19. 03. 1999, which were as follows:

"10. 03. 99 Present: Mr. Rajesh Lakhanpal for the DH. Ex. 133/98 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue warrant of attachment for attachment of Rs. 1,84,069,32 laying in bank account number given in para 8 (i) of the application, returnable by 12/07/1999. Steps within five days. List the matter before the appropriate Bench. March 10,199sd/- Mohd. Shamim, J 19. 03. 99. Present: Mr. Rajesh Lakhanpal for the decree holder. EA 149/99 in Ex. 133/98 This is an application by the decree holder for modification of the order dated 10/03/1999 with regard to the issue of warrant of Attachment in the sum of Rs. 1,84,069. 39. Learned counsel for the decree holder now states that inadvertently the Warrants of Attachment were got issued in the sum off Rs. 1,84,069. 39. In fact, then amount to be attached is Rs. 2,89,299. 04. The details thereof have been given in the Annexure a annexed with the present application. In view of the above then order dated 10/03/1999 is hereby modified to the extent that Warrant of Attachment would be issued in the sum of Rs. 2,89,299. 04. Ex. No. 133/98 Issue Warrants of Attachment in the sum of Rs. 2,89,299. 04, as per order dated 10/03/1999, returnable by 12/07/1999, the date already fixed. Steps within five days. 19/03/1999sd/- Mohd. Shamim, J. "

( 2 ) PURSUANT to these Orders a sum of Rs. 2,89,299. 04, in the Judgment Debtor s account bearing No. 3215321004, in the Reserve Bank of India was attached Reliance is placed by Learned Counsel for the Judgment Debtor, on Clause 29 of the Contract which contemplates the circumstances in which a lien is created in favour of the Government. It reads as follows: CLAUSE- 29 (i): WITH HOLDING AND LIEN IS RESPECT OF SUMS CLAIMED:-

"whenever any claim or claims for payment of a sum of money arises out of or under a contract against the contract or the Engineer in charge of the Government shall be entitled to with hold and also have a lien to retain such sum or sums in whole or in part from the security if any deposited by the contractor and for the purpose aforesaid the Engineer incharge for the Government shall be entitled to with hold the security deposit, if any, furnished by the contractor as the case may be and also have a lien over the same pending finalisation or adjudication of any such claim. In the event of the security being insufficient to cover the claimed amount or amounts or if no security has been taken from the contractor, the Engineer-in-Charge or the Government shall be entitled to withhold and have a lien to retain to the extent of such claimed amount or amounts referred to above from any sum or sums found payable or which at any time thereafter may become payable to the contractor under the same contract or any other contract with the Engineer-in-Charge or, the Government or any contracting person through the Engineer-in-Charge pending finalisation or adjudication of any such claims. "

( 3 ) THE question that arises is whether the applicant is entitled to adjust a sum of Rs. 1,41,310. 00 from the decretal amount allegedly payable by the Decree Holder to the Government (Judgment Debtor) under another contract. This sum is stated to have become payable to the Judgment Debtor in respect of an Award dated 15. 12. 1997. which admittedly is the subject of a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in O. M. P. No. 49/1998. This petition has not been disposed till date.

( 4 ) THE first contention raised in opposition to the application is that if the prayer is entertained it would necessarily entail an enquiry behind the decree, which is impermissible in law. Attention is directed to the decision in A. V. Kannappa Mudaliar v. V. C. Chellakutti Udayar, AIR 1972 Madras 287, in which the Court went to the ex