( 1 ) IN this suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, declaration and cancellation of documents and permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, the plaintiff has filed IA No. 7410/2005 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking ad interim injunction. Vide order dated 20th September, 2005, ex-parte injunction was granted to the plaintiff in this application. Aggrieved by this ex-parte injunction order, the defendant No. 1 has filed IA No. 9273/2005 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 cpc praying for vacation of the aforesaid injunction order. According to the defendant No. 1, suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 is without any cause of action and further even the requisite court fee has not been affixed. On this premise, the defendant No. 1 has filed another application i. e. IA No. 9274/2005 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the suit against the defendant No. 1. All these applications were heard together and I propose to dispose of the same in this common order.

( 2 ) INJUNCTION order dated 20th September, 2005 would give a glimpse of the plaintiffs case. The operative portion of the said order, therefore, is extracted below;"learned counsel for the plaintiff has taken me through the plaint averments and various documents filed in support thereof. Under MOU dated 28. 4. 2005 entered into between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2, plaintiff undertook to market defendants product, namely, x-Statics which had layer of pure silver permanently bonded to the surface of a textile fibre used in the uniforms of army personnel, astronauts, sports persons. The defendants No. 1 and 2 undertook to supply all the necessary material namely samples, marketing, material, literature, CDs. Clause 10 clearly stipulates that defendant will not assign the work handed over by the plaintiff to any other agent. Clause 17 further stipulates that any enquiry from institutional segments received by the defendants shall be directed to the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that after MOU the plaintiff made special efforts creating various institutional segments to launch the said product and market the same. Marketing search and surveys were conducted. Some renowned professionals named in para 8 were also introduced in the organisational structure of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that plaintiff made huge development infrastructure, created sales force, hired consultants and created a market for x-Static by contacting 400 business houses in the court. Suddenly on 20. 6. 2005, the plaintiff received a e-mail from the defendant informing that as regards defence sector they would like to work with their existing customer and the plaintiff will have the option of working with other para-military forces only. This according to the plaintiff is in gross violation of the MOU. When the plaintiff sought clarification in this regard, the defendants informed that their Vice President Mr. Satish chandra would sort out the matter with the plaintiff. Mr. Satish chandra, however, never contacted the plaintiff although he came to hyderabad. Plaintiff further pleaded that he has spent over Rs. 140 lacs for promoting x-Static product. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform its part of obligation under the said MOU. However, in breach of the said agreement, defendant 1 and 2 allegedly entered into an agreement with defendant No. 3 grating sole rights to it which plaintiff alone is entitled in violation of the MOU. Hence, the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on a decision of Calcutta high Court in the case of Vijaya Minerals Pvtxtd. v. Bikash chandra Debm, AIR 1996 Calcutta 67, wherein it was held that ad interim injunction can be granted even at the interim stage to enforce a negative covenant. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the material on record, I think it is