ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Government of Assam for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 are also heard. 2. Order dated 19.02.2020 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 104/2019 arising out of T.S. No. 155/2018 by the learned court of Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar is assailed whereby prayer for an order of ad-interim temporary injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Chief Engineer, PWD Roads, Assam and Executive Engineer, PWD Rural Road Division, Silchar respectively restraining them from releasing the 7th RA bill in favour of the respondent No. 3 and further restraining him from collecting/withdrawing the said 7th RA bill or any other bill amount in respect of the work order No. TB/SRD/PMGSY/ADB/ RC-Pt-3/AS-03-142/2014-2015/7 dated 14.01.2016 was denied to the appellant. 3. The respondent No. 3 entered into a contract vide work order No. TB/SRD/PMGSY/ADB/RC-Pt-3/AS-03-142/2014-2015/7 with the respondent No. 1 for the work of construction and maintenance under PMGSY (ADB, RCIP Tranche-3) under package No. AS-03-142. The tender value of the said work was Rs. 8,97,34,039/-. The respondent No. 3 as stated in the plaint could not proceed with the work due to financial constraint and approached the plaintiff appellant with a request to complete the remaining work at his cost and handed over the work to him for its execution. Later on, the respondent No. 3 and the appellant entered into an agreement for completion of the remaining work on 29.02.2017. Along with the said agreement the appellant was appointed as the attorney holder of the respondent No. 3 who is the contractor in the aforesaid contract under the Chief Engineer, PWD the respondent No. 1. The said general power of attorney was executed on 22.09.2017 authorizing the appellant to work on behalf of the respondent No. 3 including collection of cheques, dues payable to the respondent No. 3 from the PWD in respect of the said works contract. 4. The plaintiff appellant carried out the execution work. As per the deed of agreement dated 22.09.2017 the respondent No. 3 and the plaintiff appellant agreed to open a joint account in their names to be operated solely by the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff appellant in the meantime incurred Rs. 4. The plaintiff appellant carried out the execution work. As per the deed of agreement dated 22.09.2017 the respondent No. 3 and the plaintiff appellant agreed to open a joint account in their names to be operated solely by the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff appellant in the meantime incurred Rs. 1,30,49,157/- for the said work, but the respondent No. 3 withdrew the 5th running account bill without sharing with the appellant. The said respondent No. 3 failed to abide by the stipulations made in the agreement nor he opened the joint account and as such the plaintiff appellant requested respondent No. 2 the Executive Engineer of the concerned division not to release any amount in the name of the respondent No. 3 unless a joint account is opened. Finally, it is the pleading that the plaintiff appellant invested substantial amount in carrying out the works contract and the respondent No. 2 failed to consider his representation even after the direction of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court for which the suit was filed alongwith the following reliefs: “(a) For the decree for realization of Rs. 1,18,99,157/- from the defendants, bearing the total amount incurred by the plaintiff for such work as per agreement dated 22.09.2017. (b) For the decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to collect/realized the 6th RA bill of Rs. 59,37,897.00/- and also the subsequent bill till adjustment of the expenditure/cost an amount of the 1,18,99,157/- incurred by the plaintiff for construction work/completion of the work as per the work order issued by the department and the defendant No. 1 or 2 are legally bound to released the 6th RA bill and subsequent running bill in favour of the plaintiff till adjustment of Rs. 1,18,99,157/- incurred by the plaintiff for such work. (c) For a decree for realization of Rs. 49,03,734/- i.e. the payment of 5th RA bill from the respondent No. 6 which the defendant No. 6 withdrawn/collected in violation of terms and conditions of the registered deed of agreement vide No. 1079 dated 22.09.2017. (d) For a decree declaring that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 vide registered deed No. 1079 dated 22.09.2017 is still inforce. (e) For permanent and temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from releasing the defendant Nos. (d) For a decree declaring that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 vide registered deed No. 1079 dated 22.09.2017 is still inforce. (e) For permanent and temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from releasing the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from releasing 6th RA bill in faour of the defendant No. 6 and also restrain the defendant No. 6 from collection/realizing the 6th RA bill from the department. (f) The cost of the suit. (g) For any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is legally entitled.” 5. The appellant as the petitioner filed another application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC along with the said suit with the similar prayer to restrain the respondent No. 2 from releasing the 6th RA bill. Vide order dated 16.02.2019, learned court below was satisfied directing the respondent No. 2 not to release the payment on account of the 6th RA bill until further order. However, the said amount was released by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the subsequent application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 104/2019 in the court of Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar seeking for restraining the respondent No. 2 from releasing the 7th RA bill to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 filed his written statement and the written objection in the injunction application thereby denying the claim made by the plaintiff appellant both in the suit and the petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file their written objection in the subsequent injunction application but they filed their joint written statement in the main suit. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not recognize the appellant as the sub-contractor due to non compliance of stipulation in the contract agreement between them and the respondent No. 3. As per the terms of the contract the principal employer of respondent No. 3 must acknowledge such sub-contractor in writing which is not the case of the appellant. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 19.02.2020 rejected the said prayer for interim mandatory injunction. 6. Mr. Ghosh submits that the findings of the learned court below are totally wrong wherein it was held that as the respondent Nos. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 19.02.2020 rejected the said prayer for interim mandatory injunction. 6. Mr. Ghosh submits that the findings of the learned court below are totally wrong wherein it was held that as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered into the contract agreement with the respondent No. 3 as such the appellant has no locus-standi to seek for such relief being a stranger to the contract. The said respondents more specifically respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be restrained by an injunction order directing not to release the 7th RA bill payable to the respondent No. 3. He wanted to project that as the petitioner is the attorney holder of the respondent No. 3 and has been executing the work, the respondent No. 2 being the Executive Engineer under whom the work is going on is fully aware of the relation between the appellant and the respondent No. 3. The said knowledge on the part of the respondent No. 2 is of such a nature thereby creating privity between the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the work contract already in existence with respondent No. 3. The granting of permission by the respondent No. 2 to execute the work by the appellant itself is sufficient to arrive at such inference of privity of the contract. The court below failed to consider the said aspect of the matter. Further he argued that once there is a direction from the High Court to the respondent No. 2 for disposing the representation of the appellant that is sufficient knowledge about the interest involved of the appellant in the contract work. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 3 acted as per the direction of the High Court and assured the respondent No. 2 for placing on record the amicable solution between the appellant and the respondent No. 3 in respect of sharing the RA bills in the work executed by the appellant. The court below took a hyper technical view so far the locus-standi of the appellant in respect of the contract is concerned. The court below took a hyper technical view so far the locus-standi of the appellant in respect of the contract is concerned. Accordingly, for the ends of justice, the learned court below ought to have considered the said relation arising out of the contract and restrained the respondent No. 2 from releasing the 7th RA bill inasmuch as the appellant had already invested a substantial amount in the execution of the work. Mr. Ghosh relied various decisions in support of his contention. 7. Mr. Nath on the other hand made his submission to the effect that the appellant has no locus-standi to seek for the injunction order restraining the respondent No. 2 from releasing the 7th RA bill or any RA bill to the respondent No. 3 being the contractor under the works contract. It is also submitted by Mr. Nath that as per the required terms of contract, a subcontractor can be appointed who must be accepted by the principal (employer) acknowledging such sub-contractor in writing and the said sub-contact cannot be above 25% of the total work value of the contract. The appellant failed to show such satisfaction of the terms of the contract. The learned court below rightly passed the order. He submitted that work involved in the contract is for the benefit of the public and due to the stay order of this court the work has suffered a lot and he made his forceful submission for dismissal of the appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Talukdar supports the contention made by Mr. Nath. 8. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. There is a specific contract between the respondent No. 2 (the Executive Engineer) and the contractor, respondent No. 3. The terms and conditions made therein are binding on the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2 or any officials as the employer only. Accordingly, the privity of contract is between the said respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Ghosh wanted to project by relying various decisions that there is a privity of contract between the respondent No. 2 and the appellant and as such even if the appellant is a stranger to the said work contract has a right to sue and also for an order restraining the respondent No. 2 from releasing the payment to the respondent No. 3. In my considered opinion, the same cannot be accepted in the present factual matrix as the employer or the respondent No. 2 is not holding the 7th RA bill or any other bills as the trustee of the promise made by the respondent No. 3 to the appellant. The appellant is the beneficiary of the contract between him and the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 or 2 are not the signatory to the said contract nor there is ad-idem amongst the respondents and the appellant insofar the contractual terms which the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 entered into. Thus, if A makes a promise to B that he would pay a sum of Rs. 100/- to C, then C has a right to sue A if B acts as the trustee of the promise made by A for the benefit of C. Here in the present case in hand, the respondent No. 2 is the owner who entered into the works contract with the respondent No. 3, but respondent No. 3 did not make any promise to respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 3 would pay any amount arising out of the running account bill to the appellant. The appellant failed to show any materials that the respondent No. 2, owner acknowledged about any such promise made by the respondent No. 3 for releasing the running account bill in favour of the appellant. Normally no stranger has the right to sue any persons between whom there is a contractual obligation but the only exception is the one cited above. Under such circumstances, the appellant is bound to show that the respondent No. 2 accepted the appellant as the sub-contractor as per the promise by the respondent No. 3 and the same was accepted by the respondent No. 2. If the said relation is established even on the principle of equity which is applicable in the limited scope in contractual obligation, the claim of the appellant could have been entertained. The appellant having failed to show any ingredients as hereinabove stated at least prima-facie for the satisfaction to grant the restraining order, this court as the appellate court has no authority to interfere in the impugned order of the learned court below. As he has failed to discharge the said burden, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. The appellant having failed to show any ingredients as hereinabove stated at least prima-facie for the satisfaction to grant the restraining order, this court as the appellate court has no authority to interfere in the impugned order of the learned court below. As he has failed to discharge the said burden, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ghosh in respect of the privity of contract between the respondent No. 2 and the appellant. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the impugned order and as such this appeal stands dismissed. 9. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.