( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th February, 2002, thereby disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant-appellant.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts which may be noticed for deciding this appeal are that Mauria Udyog Pvt. Ltd. , respondent No. 1 herein (briefly referred to as the `indian Company ) has entered into an agreement with M/s. Nissho Iwai Corporation Ltd. , Tokyo, Japan, the appellant (briefly referred to as the `japanese Company ) for the supply of 10,000 MT of "hot Rolled Steel Sheets in Coil" of the specifications detailed in the proforma invoice bearing No. 2430-NW dated 25th April, 2001 @ US$ 262. 50 per MT, CFR, Bombay. The mode of payment of the price of goods was through irrevocable, un-confirmed, non-restricted Letters of Credit payable at sight. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Indian Company opened the following three irrevocable letters of credits with the Corporation Bank (respondent No. 2):-

"l. C. No. 60621112 for USD 262500 l. C. No. 60621131 for USD 525000 l. C. No. 60621179 for USD 918750"

( 3 ) THE Japanese Company shipped the first lot consisting of two consignments of 889. 490 MT vide invoice No. DP-2886 dated 13th June, 2001 in US$ 2,40,355. 77 and of 64. 040 MT vide invoice No. DP-2912 dated 13th June, 2001 for US$ 17,298. 34. The Indian Company accepted the bill of exchange for the amount of two invoices and the consignments and thereafter raised certain disputes about the quality/nonforming specifications of the goods so delivered in the first and second lot. The Japanese Company denied that there were any defects either in the quality or specifications and thereafter correspondence ensued between the parties. The third lot was shipped on 7th August, 2001 and the Indian Company sent a communication purporting to reject the goods and refusing to take delivery of the same. However, it appears that without admitting the claim of the respondent whether the material shipped were defective or inferior in quality or not conforming to the specifications, the Japanese Company as a measure of goodwill and in order to maintain good and healthy relationship offered a discount of US$ 1,05,000 if all the shipments including the fourth shipment was also accepted. The Indian Company did not accept the said offer of discount and insisted for more discount and communicated to the Japanese Company that it wanted reduction in all the lots to US$ 2,00,000 which according to the Japanese Company could not be accepted being wholly unjustified and baseless.

( 4 ) A stalemate was created and the Indian Company sought to obstruct the payment of the amounts due to the Japanese Company under the LCs. and also alleged that the LC opened by the Bank were in excessive of the document sent by the Japanese Company. The respondent-company then filed a suit against the appellant and the Corporation Bank seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from receiving any payment from the Bank/respondent under the said three letters of credits and the bill of exchange accepted by the plaintiff for US$ 2,40,355. 77, US$ 17,298. 34 and US$ 5,06,525. 97 and also restraining the bank from making any payment to the appellant. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the plaintiff for the same relief and vide an order dated 19th October, 2001, the learned Single Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendant-bank from making payment to the extent of 50% under the first two letters of credit bearing LC No. 60621112 for US$ 2,62,500 and LC No. 60621131 for US$ 5,25,000 and the whole of the amount of LC No. 60621179 for US$ 9,81,750 under the bills of exchange. The appellant being served filed its reply and an applicati