VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 41 (a) and (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The applicant has also contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. However, this argument is not raised by the defendant/applicant in the course of his arguments.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:-

" (a) Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that cheque No. 482423 dated 15. 03. 06 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy house, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 62,60,000 is null and void and un-enforceable against the issuing bank or against the plaintiff.

(b) Pass a decree thereby adjudging the cheque No. 482423 dated 15. 03. 06 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House, tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 62,60,000/- is null and void and unenforceable, and directing that the same be delivered up and cancelled.

(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any claim against the Plaintiff, of whatsoever nature on the basis of cheque No. 482423 dated 15. 03. 06 drawn on Punjab National Bank. Tolstoy House, tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 62,60,000/ -. "

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Sirdanwal Overseas which is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of garments and other allied products and services. The plaintiff acts as the Indian representative of various foreign buyers sourcing garments and apparels from India. One of the foreign buyers intended to source cushion covers from India and the plaintiff was authorised by the foreign buyer to negotiate and finalize the conditions of purchase, and to supervise and certify the quality control requirements in respect of the products to be sourced from India. The plaintiff has expertise and experience in the relevant field. Consequentially, the plaintiff was so authorised by the foreign buyer. The defendant is a manufacturer of garments. To meet the requirement of the said foreign buyer, the parties herein entered a memorandum of understanding on 24th February, 2006. Under the terms of the MOU, the defendant was obliged to get the initial fabric of 9,200 meters worth Rs. 21,41,576/- for base fabric of cushion covers and 6,600/- meters worth Rs. 19,71,420/- for border fabric of cushion covers and accessories "in-house at its factory as a guarantee for the Letter of Credit". The Letter of Credit was to be issued by the foreign buyer in favour of the defendant. As a counter guarantee, the plaintiff issued its own cheque for rs. 62,60,000/-, in the event of the LC not being furnished by the foreign buyer. The said cheque was to be encashed only upon failure of the foreign buyer to furnish the LC provided the defendant had procured base fabric and the border fabric as aforesaid.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the LC as opened by the foreign buyer was not acceptable to the defendant. Even though the defendant itself failed to procure the fabric as aforesaid, it sought to encash the cheque of Rs. 62,60,000/- issued by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had no lawful right to present the cheque for clearance and the cheque had already become null and void in terms of the Clause 3 of MOU. In para 13 of the plaint, it is disclosed that the defendant have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the plaintiff in respect of the dishonour of the said cheque. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for in these circumstances.

( 5 ) THE objections raised by the defendant in his aforesaid application are that the plaintiff is essentially seeking to scuttle the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and an injunction cannot be gran