PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. We shall be referring to the parties as the plaintiff; defendant No.1; defendant No.2; and defendant No.3 respectively.

2. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (the first respondent in the appeal) is the plaintiff. Public Power Corporation SA (respondent No.3 in the appeal) is defendant No.1. Hellenic Electricity Distribution (the appellant in the appeal) is defendant No.2. State Bank of India (respondent No.2 in the appeal) is defendant No.3.

3. The plaintiff instituted a suit pleading that defendant No.1 is a company established in Greece and was in the business of power production and power supply. It invited a global tender for supply of five transformers. Plaintiff’s bid was accepted and on February 05, 2009 a contract was executed containing, amongst others, terms on which liquidated damages for late supply could be levied. As per the contract, a performance guarantee had to be given to defendant No.1 and therefore, at the asking of the plaintiff the defendant No.3 issued, in favour of defendant No.1, a performance guarantee No.0999609FG in sum of € 7,54,707.50 which was valid till August 25, 2012 and that as per the contract, as and when a transformer was supplied the value of the performance guarantee stood automatically reduced proportionately. Pleading certain facts concerning approval of a design and sourcing components i.e. a dispute relating to the contract (which we need not burden ourselves with for the reason the prayer in the suit was to restrain defendants No.1 and 2 from invoking the bank guarantee and to restrain defendant No.3 from paying under the bank guarantee), it was pleaded that three transformers were delivered in respect of which payment was released after deducting liquidated damages, in respect of which the plaintiff reserved the right to initiate appropriate proceedings, it was pleaded that in the month of March, 2012, defendant No.1 informed that defendant No.2 would be substituted as the contracting party and that discussions took place to execute a formal document replacing defendant No.2 in place of defendant No.1 as the contracting party and a bank guarantee in favour of defendant No.2 to be issued; it was pleaded that defendant No.2 illegally rescinded the contract and threatened to encash the bank guarantee. The prolix plaint running into 79 paragraphs spans 40 pages and learned senior counsel for the plaintiff during arguments in the appeal stated that invocation of the bank guarantee was challenged on the ground that defendant No.2 was not the beneficiary and hence could not have invoked the bank guarantee; that no assignment under the contract could be made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2; that neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 had assets in India and therefore if bank guarantee was allowed to be invoked, irretrievable injustice would be caused to the plaintiff; keeping in view the fact that three transformers were supplied, albeit belatedly in terms of the contract, the entire bank guarantee could not be invoked; and lastly that invocation of the guarantee would be an act of fraud.

4. Along with the suit an application for interim injunction was filed. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted.

5. Issue currently awaits confirmation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted and we are concerned in the instant appeal with the decision dismissing IA No.16803/2014 filed by defendant No.2 for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the plea that in view of clause 20 in the agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, the rights whereunder of defendant No.1 were assigned to defendant No.2, when in Greece due to legislation, generation, transmission and distribution of electricity was hived off with transmission and distribution assigned to defendant No.2, exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the Courts at Athens. The clause in question reads :

“20. Settlement of differences

In cas