ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for NF Railway, the principal respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein. The matter has been heard at the admission stage.

2. By this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the appellants have assailed the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 884/2019 in T.S. No. 511/2019. By the said order the learned trial Court had held that the contents of the petition do not show any urgency at this juncture and, as such, no ad-interim injunction was granted and notice was issued upon the respondent to show cause, fixing 11.12.2019 for service report and objection. Along with the appeal, the appellants have also filed a separate application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction. By this common order, the appeal and the application for ad interim injunction are both disposed of.

3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that by letter dated 18.09.2019, the respondents had threatened to encash two bank guarantees dated 15.01.2018 and 29.09.2018 issued by the proforma respondents No. 8 and 9, which was of combined value of more that Rs. 11.00 Crore. Accordingly, in view of the said letter dated 18.9.2019, a specific prayer had been made by the appellants in Misc. (J) Case No. 884/19 filed before the learned trial court to seek ad-interim injunction thereby restraining the respondents herein from recovering their claim amount from the appellants by encashing/invoking the herein before referred 2 (two) bank guarantees.

4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been threatened with encashment of the said two bank guarantee instruments, but if those two bank guarantees are actually invoked and encashed, the appellants would suffer a irreparable and irreversible prejudice and financial set-back and it would completely erode the credibility of the appellants before the concerned banks. Accordingly, it is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court by holding that no urgency was perverse and was not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that once the said bank guarantees were invoked, there was no alternative for the concerned bank, but to make payment of the amount covered by their respective bank guarantees.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to a human error in carrying out the calculation, there was a mistake on part of the appellants to raise Price Variation Bills (PVC bills for short), which resulted in excess payment being drawn. However, when such discrepancies were brought to their notice, the appellants had revisited the calculation and agreed to an adjustment of the erroneously drawn amount from future bills due to them from out of 18 (eighteen) pending contracts. It is also submitted that as on date the appellants would be entitled to approximately Rs. 25.00 Crore from the respondents in respect of the said 18 (eighteen) pending contracts. Moreover, it is submitted that further money of the appellants are also lying with the respondents on account of security deposit and various performance guarantees given and, as such, the money due to the respondents, if there be any, was fully secured.

6. In this connection, it is submitted that out of the estimated over drawn amount of Rs. 6.33 crore, the Railways have already realized a sum of about Rs. 2.16 crore by way of adjustment from the subsequent PVC bills, and it is further submitted that as per the verbal instruction received today, the Railways have made a further recovery of Rs. 92.00 lakh approx., for which the relevant documents is not immediately available with him. It is submitted that without taking into consideration the s