( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Sec. 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging an order dt. 31st July, 2000 passed below Notice of Motion Ex. 6 in Civil Suit No. 2971 of 2000 by learned Auxi. Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad ( who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Judge of the trial court ). When this appeal was taken up for hearing at admission stage, both the parties submitted to this court that this appeal be taken up for final hearing as if it is already admitted, and therefore, at the request of both the parties, this appeal is finally heard and decided and disposed of at admission stage.

( 2 ) HERE in this appeal, appellant is a plaintiff, while respondent nos. 1 and 2 are defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Civil Suit No. 2971 of 2000 which is pending on the file of learned Judge of the trial court, and therefore, for the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 respectively at appropriate place.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this present appeal in a nutshell are as follows:-THE defendant no. 1 obtained a piece of land situated at Uran in the State of Maharashtra from Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ( in short " JNPT ") on lease for the purpose of constructing and installing storage tank for liquid Cargo, known as "tank Farm Project" ( in short "tfp" ). The said work was partly performed by the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 1 could not complete the project, and therefore, defendant no. 1 invited Tenders to transfer the liability of the aforesaid TFP on JNPT. In response to the invitation of Tenders, plaintiff received Tender from defendant no. 1 on 28th October, 1999. Plaintiff filled in the particulars in the Tender, signed and then submitted it to defendant no. 1 under its covering letter dt. 29th November, 1999. As it was one of the terms and conditions of the Tender, that the tenderer must pay Rs. 100 Lacs by Demand Draft or Rs. 200 Lacs by way of Bank Guarantee in favour of M/s. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (i. e. defendant no. 1) ( In short "hocl") by any Scheduled Bank, and therefore, the plaintiff submitted its tender under its covering letter dt. 29th November, 1999 along with a Bank Guarantee dt. 19th November, 1999 issued by defendant no. 2, in favour of defendant no. 1. Thereafter, there was an exchange of letters in connection with Tender in between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 inter se. As it appears from record that offer made by plaintiff vide its letter dt. 29th November, 1999, was valid for the period upto 15th January, 2000. From record, it also appears that for the first time, the defendant no. 1 addressed a letter dt. 12th January, 2000 to plaintiff with a request to extend validity of offer of plaintiff for a period upto 31st March, 2000. In reply to said letter dt. 12th January, 2000 of defendant no. 1, plaintiff by its letter dt. 25th January, 2000 extended the validity period of its offer for the period upto 31st May, 2000. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 wrote a letter dt. 13th March, 2000 to plaintiff inviting plaintiff for negotiations with defendant no. 1 at Bombay on 18th March, 2000. Accordingly a Joint Meeting of plaintiffs officers and defendant no. 1s officers was held at Bombay on 18th March, 2000. It is pertinent to note that Minutes of that Meeting held at Bombay on 18th March, 2000 were not drawn either by plaintiff or by defendant no. 1. In continuation of negotiations made by Officers of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in that Joint Meeting held on 18th March, 2000, plaintiff by its letter dt. 21st March, 2000 modified its earlier offer dt. 29th November, 1999 and put its new offer by increasing the bid price by a figure of Rs. 25 Lacs extra for TFP. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 wrote a letter dt. 23rd March, 2000 to plaintiff, in continuation of Meeting held at Bombay on 18th March, 2000. In that letter