VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) 1. By the present order, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid two applications - one filed by the plaintiff being IA No. 3404/02 under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction, and the other being IA No. 7790/02 under Order 39, rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant seeking vacation of ex parte order of ad interim injunction dated 08-04-02 passed in IA No. 3404/02.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff company is engaged in the business of foreign exchange. It acts as a money changer and in the process it buys traveler cheques. Plaintiff was also, at the relevant time, acting as an agent of the defendant for the purpose of selling traveler cheques in foreign exchange issued by the defendant. The plaintiff got issued three bank guarantees through its banker, defendant No. 4 wherein beneficiaries were defendants No. 1 and 2. These bank guarantees were issued in relation to two agency agreements dated 27-06-98 and 30-04-99. The details of the bank guarantees are as follows:

(a) BGNO-NDLS/bg/164/2001 for Rs. 11,75,750/- favouring defendant No. 1; (b) NDLF/df/2005-BG5/98/1383 For Rs. 21,27,500/- favouring defendant No. 2; (c) BGNO-NDLF/df/2005/bg70/1999/1382/2001 for Rs. 10,73,500/- favouring defendant No. 1.

( 3 ) THE purpose of issuance of the bank guarantees apparently was to secure the defendants in respect of the traveler cheques issued to the plaintiff for sale.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration and perpetual injunction on the averments that the plaintiff was scrupulously adhering to the agency agreements and that there had been no violation of the terms and conditions thereof. It was further claimed that defendants No. 1-3 had never complained of any default on the part of the plaintiff in the performance of its obligations by the plaintiff under the agency agreements which were still in force at the time of filing of the suit. It was further averred that on 06-03-02 plaintiff had come to know that defendant No. 1 had lodged a claim with defendant No. 4 invoking the aforesaid three bank guarantees in respect of some alleged claims to the tune of US$ 33,000. Plaintiff further stated that the defendants had not supplied any traveler cheques of the amount of US$ 33,000 to the plaintiff under the agency agreements which remained unpaid.

( 5 ) IT was further stated that there was one transaction worth US$ 33,000 whereunder one Ms. Kamlesh Kumari having an Indian passport had approached the plaintiff in May 1999 for exchange of traveler cheques worth US$ 33,000. The plaintiff had exchanged these traveler cheques for cash paid to Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, since the traveler cheques prima facie appeared to be genuine and issued by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had lodged the said traveler cheques with defendant No. 1 for encashment and the defendants had reimbursed the amount of the said traveler cheques to the plaintiff, subject to the condition of indemnity.

( 6 ) FROM a reading of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff while filing the suit, apprehended that invocation of the bank guarantees was to seek reimbursement of the amount of us$ 33,000 by the defendants. The plaintiff further stated that the transaction in relation to Ms. Kamlesh Kumari was not part of the agency agreements. The indemnity of the plaintiff could not be enforced through encashment of the bank guarantees, which were given to secure payments due to the defendants under the agency agreements.

( 7 ) PLAINTIFF also averred that invocation of the bank guarantees by the defendant was illegal, fraudulent and tantamounted to illegal enrichment at the cost of the plaintiff. It was further averred that invocation of the bank guarantees was beyond the scope of the agency agreements and the bank guarantees, and was bad in law.

( 8 ) ON 08-04-02, when the matter came up at an ex parte stage, this court directed defendant No. 4 to withhold payment against the bank guarantees in question. Subsequently, the defendants filed