VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The Appellant, namely, Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter compendiously referred as BEBP‘ or Plaintiff/Appellant) assails the Judgment dated 8.5.2008 of the learned Single Judge whereby its Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction came to be dismissed. The Plaintiff/Appellant had arrayed Vijaya Bank as Defendant No.1; Saudi Hollandi Bank as Defendant No.2 and Civil Works Company Limited, Saudi Arabia (CWC Saudi Arabia) as Defendant No.3. There has been no representation on behalf of Defendants No.2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge. It appears that notice has not been issued to Defendants No.2 and 3 in this Appeal. However, since the matter has been argued at great length, and keeping in perspective the conclusion that we have arrived at, we think it unnecessary to delay the disposal of the Appeal by insisting on service of notice on Defendant Nos.2 and 3.

2. It is evident from the impugned Judgment that the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Plaintiff had made serious misrepresentations to the Court. After a detailed discussion on the facts of the case it was found that the Plaintiff was not entitled for any interim relief. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has returned the finding that Courts in India do not possess territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said case. Hence, the Suit was also dismissed as not maintainable.

3. We shall first deal with the question whether this Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate over the dispute. Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC‘ for short) immediately becomes relevant. It stipulates that if the Court is of the opinion that it does not possess territorial jurisdiction, it must return the plaint for filing in the appropriate Court. It does not postulate the dismissal of the suit. Since it is clear that the dismissal of the suit was not predicated only on the absence of territorial jurisdiction, we shall desist from making any further observations. This is for the reason that a suit can also be dismissed under Rule 11 of the said Order VII of the CPC which, inter alia, states that a plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or appears, from the statement in the Plaint, to be barred by any law.

4. The Prayers made in the Plaint read thus:-

43. (a) pass a decree of Declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1 declaring that the counter guarantee No.FBG/RFC/01/105 in favour of Saudi Hollandi Bank, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,the Defendant No.2 is void;

(b) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring that the performance guarantee No.050119IS721CA dated 19th January, 2005 issued by Saudi Hollandi Bank, Defendant No.2 herein in favour of Defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.SAR 12.50 million valid for a period of 45 months beginning 18th January, 2005 and ending on 18th October, 2008, is void;

(c) a Decree Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.3 restraining the said Defendant, its representatives, officers, representatives or assigns from encashing the performance bank guarantee No. 050119IS721CA dated 19th January, 2005 issued by Saudi Hollandi Bank, Defendant No.2 herein in favour of Defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.SAR 12.50 million valid for a period of 45 months beginning 18th January, 2005 and ending on 18th October, 2008;

(d) Decree of Permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1 and 2 restraining Defendant No.1, its representatives, officers, representatives or assigns from making any payment against the counter guarantee No.FBG/RFC/01/05 in favour of the Saudi Hollandi Bank, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Defendant No.2 from demanding any sum against the said counter guarantee.;

(e) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.2 from making any payment to Defendant No.3 against performance bank guarante