( 1 ) MESSRS. Panj Sons Pvt. Ltd. (appellant herein), filed a suit seeking issuance of permanent injunction, against Messrs. General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. , (for short getsco ), restraining them through their agents, employees etc. from enchshhing or seeking eneashment of the bank guarantee dated January, 1988 as furnished by the Hong Kong and Shnghai Banking Copporation, respoadent No. 1 herein. seeking correspondingly decree again the bank restraining it from making payment under the aforesaid guarantee or the cashier order to GETSCO.

( 2 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY, anapplication under order 39 Rnle 1,2 and 3 read with Section 151 Code or Civil Procedure was filed-seeking an ad interim injunction against the respondents in the same terms, as prayer in the suit It appears that an ex-parte interim injunction was issued in the first instance as prayed for, but on an application being made by GETSCO under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. the said order was. vacated, and application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and 3 Civil Procedure Code dismissed by an order passed on I 1th July, 1989. It is this order which is assailed in the present appeal, reiterating the plea for restraining GETSCO from enforcing or encashing the bank guarantee/cashier order for the amount of Rs. 1,06. S2,500. 00 , as furnished/ issued by respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) THE facts in so far as they, have a bearing OH the appreciation of the contentions canvassed in the present appeal and disposal thereof, are as under.

( 4 ) AN agreement was arrived at between M/s. Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. the appellant and respondent No. 2 (GETSCO) on 13thoctobcr, 1986 for getting fabrication and installation work done from the eppellant in respect to aircraft test centre/engine repair centre at the Indian Airlines Engineering Comlex, Palam Airport, New Delhi which GETSCO had undcrtaken to construct for the Indian Airlines on the basis of an agreement dated 20th November, 1985 executed between GETSCO and Indian Airlines. In so far as the appellants are concerned, the total revised value of the contract was Rs. 7,07,50,000. 00 and a formal contract was executed between them on August 21, 1987, although the work had already been commenced by the appellants with effect from October 13, 1986 in pursnance to the oral agreement. , In the contract M/s. Pnnj Sons were described as contractor , the GETSCO as owner and the Indian Airlines as Owner s Customer . As rms of the contract, the work was to be completed by the appellant within 7-1/2 months from the date of supply of certain material to it by GETSCO. It is stated that this material was finally supplied on January 3, 1988. As a result, the dale of completion as per terms of the contract came to be 18th August, 1988.

( 5 ) ANADVANCE payment equal to 25% of the coatract price was agreed to be paid to the Contractor. Such advance was to be liquidated prorata, and deducted. from subsequent payments to be made for material and work executed until the total amount of advance payment bad been recovered by GETSCO. It was further stipulated in clause 5. 1 of the eontract that ,thc Contractor shall secure at no cost to theowncr. abank guarantee for the full amount of the advance payment. Pursuant to this terms of the Contract, a bank guarantee wherein mobilisation advance was quantified to be Rs. l,86,0,00. 00 was furnished by the Bank, respondent No. 1, obviously at the instance of the appellants and this bank guarantee is No. 86 NDH 918, dated 28th October 1986.

( 6 ) IN addition, the appellants had undertaken vide Clause 8 of the contract to furnish performance bonds equal to 30% of the total value of the Contract, which, was to be split up into two performance bonds partly to be released on completion of the Project, and the balance upon the expiration of the Warranty.

( 7 ) THE appellants allege to have undertaken the work and continued with execution of the same as per terms of the Contract and intimated complet