( 1 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties on 7. 5. 2002 and 8. 5. 2002 short operative order was dictated in Court on 8. 5. 2002, stating that for detailed reasons to follow later, the respondent shall stand restrained from proceeding with its suit in English High court proceedings-Claim No. HQ 02x00183 British Milierain co. Limited v. Harish Ahuja and (2) Palmprint Textiles (India) Limited. The appeal and the miscellaneous application stood disposed of. we are now supplying the reasons in support of our order.

( 2 ). The plaintiff/appellants felt aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge on 19. 4. 2002 when, on their application (I. A. 3869/2002), ex-parte ad-interim order of restraint against the defendant/respondent, was not issued and instead the application was adjourned to 20th May, 2002. In the said application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiff had prayed as under :-

"pass ex parte ad-interim order restraining the defendant and/or its servants or agents From in any manner proceeding with claim No. HQ 02x00183 dated 18. 1. 2002 presently pending before the High Court of Justice of england and wales and/or any proceeding, arising out of and connected therewith in the high Court of Justice of England and wales and to make the said order absolute upon return of notice of motion. "

( 3 ). At the very outset a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondent about maintainability of the appeal. By placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Nisha Raj and another vs. Pratap K. Kaula and Others 57 (1995) DLT 490 it was submitted that such an order passed in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC directing only notice, is not appealable.

( 4 ). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the plaint and the miscellaneous application, as also the nature of the suit filed by the appellants and the proceedings taken out by respondent before the High Court of Justice of england and wales we are of the view that even on the ratio of the decision in Nisha Raj s case. (supra), the instant case can be said to be falling in the exceptional class of cases as REFERRED TO to in the said decision. In the event of non-grant of interim relief, as prayed for, likelihood of the plaintiff being put in an irretrievable situation cannot be ruled out. As such the preliminary objection has no force and is turned down.

( 5 ). The appellants on 21. 4. 1998 filed the suit. The plaint was registered on 29. 4. 1998. Respondent was directed to be served through ordinary process as well as by registered A. D. post for 28. 5. 1998, on which date the respondent put in appearance through counsel. Despite grant of seven adjournments calling upon the respondent to file the written statement, and despite imposition of costs twice, written statement was not filed. Lastly the suit was adjourned from 5. 10. 99 to 11. 1. 2000. During this period two applications were filed by the respondent- on 11. 11. 1999, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 CPC and for striking off the plaint under Order 6 rule 16 CPC. Notice of these applications was directed to be issued for 7. 1. 2000. No steps were taken by the respondent to serve the appellants, when the suit was taken up on 11. 1. 2000, it was noticed that written statement had not been filed. The Court insisted that the respondent should file written statement before its two applications are considered. As such in a suit which was instituted on 21. 4. 1998 the written statement was filed by the respondent after about 33 months on 9. 2. 2001.

( 6 ). The appellants in the suit have claimed a decree against the Respondent for declaration, that no contract for sale of any textile machinery by the respondent to the appellants, was ever executed between the parties and in particular the offer dated 10. 1. 1998 of the respondent did not fructify into a