The withdrawal of a previous suit precluded the filing of the present suit, and the plaintiff did not establish a higher standard than a prima facie case required for a prohibitory injunction.

( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of IA no. 3156/2001 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) SUIT was instituted alleging that defendant No. 1-company is holding 51% equity shares in defendant No. 4-company while remaining 49% shares are held by defendant No. 2-company. Under a Inter Corporate Deposit agreement dated 29/4/1998, the plaintiff No. 1-company deposited with defendant No. 1 an amount of Rs. 1 crore which was repayable with interest on 27/8/1998. Defendant No. 1 being unable to repay this amount with interest vide letter dated 1/2/1999 requested plaintiff No. 1 to roll-over ICD for an additional period of 134 days. Plaintiff No. 1 agreed to roll-over the ICD for said period and a fresh Inter Corporate deposit Agreement dated 1/2/1999 was entered into between the parties. In order to secure plaintiff No. 1 for re-payment of said amount with interest, the defendant No. 1 pledged a total of 85 lacs shares held by it in Punwire trunking Services Ltd. under a letter of pledge dated 1/2/1999. Defendant No. 1 further entered into an agreement with plaintiff No. 1 to pledge its 51% shareholding (45,90,000 number of equity shares) in defendant No. 4 in the event of default in making payment of said dues by it. It is further alleged that plaintiff No. 2 purchased from plaintiff No. 1, 51% shareholding of defendant No. 1 in defendant No. 4 company. Under said agreement dated 1/2/1999, the deposit matured on 15/6/1999. Defendant no. 1 was to make payment of Rs. 13,21,644. 00 by way of interest besides principal amount of Rs. 1 crore to plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 1 issued cheques bearing No. 0417438 for. Rs. 1 crore towards principal and No. 0417439 for Rs. 8,02,348. 00 towards interest on 15/6/1999. However, on presentation both these cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thereafter plaintiff no. 1 issued a notice under Section 136 of negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to defendant no. 1 calling upon it to make payment of both the cheques within 15 days failing which proceeding under said Section 138 was threatened to be initiated against it. On 20/7/1999, the defendant No. 1 made payment of an amount of rs. 3,33,025. 00 which was adjusted towards overdue interest. Defendant No. 1 failed to make payment of the balance due towards principal and interest despite service of demand letter dated 3/11/1999 through registered post, by plaintiff No. 1. It is alleged that by the order dated 27/7/2000 passed by-the High Court of punjab and Haryana in C. A. No,705/99 in C. P. No. 226/99 - W. S. Oberoi and Associates Vs. Punjab wireless Systems Ltd. , a provisional liquidator was appointed for defendant No. 1 company plaintiff No. 1 wrote a letter dated 15/9/2000 to the provisional liquidator asking him to hand over 45,90,000. 00 equity shares held by defendant No. 1 in defendant No. 4-company alongwith duly signed transfer deed (s) towards discharge of the amount due from defendant No. 1. Thereafter on 8/11/2000, the plaintiff no. 1 again wrote to the provisional liquidator to hand over additional 10,00,008 number of shares as 45,90,000 shares were insufficient to discharge the debt. Provisional liquidator has failed and neglected to hand over the said shares of defendant No. 4 to plaintiff No. 1. It is stated that defendant No. 2 intends to sell its 49% shareholding to defendant No. 3 at a price of rs. 2. 33 per share. Under clause 14 of Article of association of defendant No. 4, the plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to exercise right of first refusal on the shares proposed to be sold by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3. Plaintiff No. 1 sent a letter dated 14/11/2000 to defendant No. 1 through provisional liquidator stating that plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to the right of first refusal on said shareholding and defendant No. 1 must communicate this fact to defendants 2 and 3 and further that plaintiff No. 1 is willing to purchase said shareholdi