ANIL DEV SINGH, J.

( 1 ) : Admit.

( 2 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated December 19, 1994 whereby the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code read with section 151 thereof has been dismissed. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

( 3 ) THE Union of India, which is the appellant in this appeal, and the respondent entered into an agreement being agreement No. 19/ GCD/88-89 by virtue of which the latter undertook to execute the work of replacement of double security fencing at Hindon Airfield, Hindon. The agreement was signed on behalf of the President of India by the Executive Engineer, Ghaziabad, Central Division, C. P. W. D. Hindon Airforce Station, being the Engineer-in-charge. As per clause (2) (e) of the conditions of contrast the Engineer-in-charge was to supervise and be incharge of the work. At this stage it will be convenient to extract the said clause which reads as follows:-

" (E) The Engineer-in-charge means the Divisional Officer who shall Supervise and be in charge of the work and who shall sign the contract on behalf of the President. "

( 4 ) THE execution of the work led to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document