( 1 ) THE plaintiff Corporation Bank filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 9,53,653. 66 paise based on written contract under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short Civil Procedure Code. ). The suit has been filed on the basis of the bills amount due but not paid by the defendants. The case of the plaintiff bank as set out in the plaint is that defendant No. l M/s Montana International in the course of business dealing with the bank requested it to open Import tetter of Credit for having the import of the desired merchandis from M/s Tejis International Pte. Ltd. On the basis of Said request of defendant No. l through defendants 2 and 4, plaintiff bank opened an Import Letter of Credit favouring M/s Tejis International Pte. Ltd. to cover the import of "five metric tonnes of Colomby Cloves". Letter of Credit was opened through their correspondent M. /s Marine; ,midland Bank, Singapore, for negotiations. Last date of shipment of goods was 28th February,1984. The Letter of Credit was irrevocably valid untll 10th March,1984 inclusive, of the negotiation period. Subsequently, by an amendment in the Letter of Credit, requirement of Fumigation Certificate was deleted. The defendants agreed to in demnify the plaintiff bank against all losses, costs, expenses,claims and demands. The defendant firm also agreed to accept upon presentation the bills to be received under the Letter of Credit and to pay the amounts under the bills at or before maturity day with interest and other charges. Bank received bills alongwith set of documents raised by M/s Tejis International Pte. Ltd. The said bills were due for payment by the defendants on 29th March,1984. The merchandise against the said documents were shipped under the Airway Bills of defendant Airlines. The defendant No. 5 effected carriage of the consignment and the plaintiff was to receive Cargo Arrival Notice through office of the Air India on behalf of defendant No. 5. The consignment was to be delivered to the plaintiff in the account of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff presented- duplicate set of documents relating to the bills upon defendant firm at Delhi. The defendant firm accepted the documents and agreed to pay the amount but did not do so inspite of repeated reminders. On enquiry, it was transpired that defendant No. I had already taken delivery of the consignment covered by the Airway Bills under the Cargo Notice sent by them. Under the Airway Bills, delivery could only be effected by the plaintiff alone, but defendant No. 5 due to its negligence delivered the same to defendant No. 1 who had forged, and fabricated the documents in the name of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 5 in collusion with each other deprived the plaintiff of the goods and the consequent amounts hence this suit. Summons in form IV of the Schedule B of Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. were issued to the defendants. After service of summons, defendants put in appearance. Thereafter summons for judgment were taken out and served on the defendants. In response there too, the defendants filed this application, by which the defendant M/s Montana International through defendant No. 4 Shri Sudhir Anand have sought leave to defend this suit unconditionally. The leave has been sought inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff bank has already lodged criminal complaint with the police against the defendant, hence the matter being sub-judice,the. suit on the same cause of action is not maintainable. That Air India is a necessary party to the suit whereas defendant No. 5 M/s Seroflot Soviet Airlines was not a necessary, party. Therefore, the suit is not only bad for non-joinder of necessary party but also bad for mis-joinder of parties. Even otherwise defendant No. 5 being a foreign company and agent of Soviet Socialist Republic, without the consent of the Central Government no suit against defendant No. 5 is maintainable. That the goods in question never passed to defendant 1. According t