( 1 ) M/s. ELECTRONIC Media Corporation, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 15,14,122/- arraying Bank of India as defendant No. l, Canara Bank as defendant No. 2 and m/s. Durga Trading Co. , and its three partners as defendants 3 to 6 on 6th/15th November 1997. In the suit the defendant No. l has filed I. A. 7187/99 under section 10 read with section 151 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 for staying the suit on the ground of pendency of 0. A. No. 874/95 filed by it before the Debt recovery Tribunal. I. A. No. 6600/99 under section 10 read with section 151 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 has been filed by defendant No. 2 claiming similar relief.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF has contested both these I. As by filing separate replies.

( 3 ) COPIES of petition of said O. A. and written statements filed by defendant No. 1, plaintiff and its three partners are placed on the file. In said O. A. plaintiff has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 while its three partners as respondents 2 to 4. Defendant No. 1 has been impieaded as respondent No. 5 while defendant No. 3 as respondent No. 6. It is alleged in the O. A. that respondent No. 1 through its partners respondents 2 to 4 was sanctioned BE/lc limit upto Rs. 10 lakhs vide letter dated 19th March 1993 by the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 deals in electronic goods and used to purchase the same from respondent No. 1, a manufacturer. On several occasions, respondent No. 6 opened letters of credit with its bankers respondent No. 5 in favour of respondent No. 1 for clearance of various bills. Several times the petitioner bank discounted the bills, made payments against LCs and received payments from respondent No. 5 on negotiating the documents. During the course of business the respondent no. 6 opened following irrevocable letters of credit :-

1. EK/adv/lc/23/20 dated 14. 08. 93 BE No. 64/93

2. EK/adv/lc/23/30 dated 01. 10. 93 BE No. 69/93

3. EK/adv//lc/23/35 dated 16. 10. 93 BE No. 70/93

4. EK/adv/lc/23/32 dated 09. 10. 93 BE No. 71/93

5. EK/adv/lc/23/37 dated 26. 10. 93 BE No. 76/93

6. EK/adv/lc/23/36 dated 29. 10. 93 BE No. 77/93

( 4 ) IN respect of said BE/lcs the bills of exchange (hundies) were executed by respondent No. 6 which were duly discounted by petitioner bank. It is further alleged that the documents relating to said BE/lcs were presented to respondent No. 5 for negotiations. However, respondent No. 5 pointed out certain discrepancies therein. Despite rectification of those discrepancies by respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 5 bank failed to make payment thereof. It is further alleged that by the letter dated 12th January 1994, the respondent No. 5 for the first time informed the petitioner bank about its not having received the documents relating to BE Nos. 47/93 and 64/93. Vide letter dated 30th january 1994 the petitioner bank informed respondent No. 5 that the documents pertaining to both the said BEs were sent by registered post No. 1162 dated 12th September 1993 and those were acknowledged by respondent No. 5 as was shown in the certificate of delivery issued by the Postal department. Though respondent No. 5 wrote a letter dated 21st January 1994 to the petitioner bank but it again failed to acknowledge the receipt documents pertaining to said BEs 64/93 and 47/93. So, a protest was lodged by the petitioner vide letter dated 2nd February 1994 with the respondent No. 5 but nothing material came out. It is further alleged that on final accounting a total sum of rs. 11,78,593-10p including interest upto 7th October 1996 was due which is payable jointly and severally by respondents 1 to 6. Details of said amount have been given as under:-

1. BE 64/93 Rs. 2,10,513. 00

2. BE 69/93 Rs. 2 ,02 ,975. 00

3. BE 70/93 Rs. 2,00,114. 00

4. BE 71/93 Rs. 1,33,111. 00

5. BE 76/93 Rs. 2,34,123. 00

6. BE 77/93 Rs. 1,92,299. 10

( 5 ) IT is alleged that besides BE/lc limit the respondents 1 to 4 also enjoyed temporary overdrawing in their Current Account No. 2873 with the petitioner bank. Respondents 1 to