( 1 ) APPELLANTS have preferred TO this appeal against the order dated 19. 5. 1994, passed by Shri G. S. Jugti, Additional District Judge, allowing the application of respondent No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the appellant from encashing the two bank guarantees till the disposal of the main suit.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional District Judge allowed the application of respondent No. 1, holding that the notice invoking the bank guarantee was not in accordance with thc terms and conditions of the bank guarantee and was, therefore, of no legal ellect and inoperative. As per the impugned order, the notice did not disclose as to why the bank guaranlee was being invoked, It did not mention the alleged non-supply of material or the resultant loss or the extent thereof. Besides, he held that the contract was subsisting and had not been rescinded, in the absence of which the hank guarantee could not be encashed. He also held that respondent No. 1 would suffer huge loss on encashment of the bank guarantee.

( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, leading to the filing of this appeal may be noted :

(I) Appellant, which is a cement manufacturing