P. A. Mohammed, J. - The cardinal dispute for adjudication in this appeal revolves around the invocation of Bank guarantees executed in terms of an agreement for performance of a works contract. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the responds from enforcing the Bank guarantees executed by the second respondent on behalf of the appellant in favour of the first respondent. The plaintiff M/s. Geo Tech. Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Geo Tech') is the appellant and the first respondent M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (hereinafter called by acronym 'HSCL') is the first defendant in the suit. The State Bank of Travancore, M.G. Road, Ernakulam is the second defendant. This appeal is directed against the order of the First Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam in an interim application, I.A. No. 1908 of 1998 in O.S. No. 236 of 1998.

2. The above suit was filed praying for a decree on the following terms :

"(a) to declare that the first defendant has no right or authority whatsoever to invoke bank guarantee Nos. BG. No. 41/94-95 dated 17-11-1994 for Rs. 5 lakhs, B.G. No. 42/94-95 dated 17-11-1994 for Rs. 5 lakhs and B.G. No. 43/94-95 dated 17-11-1994 for Rs. 5 lakhs issued by the second defendant and that the second defendant has no right or authority whatsoever to make any payment pursuant to the same and that the said Bank stands discharged.

(b) to grant a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant from invoking Bank guarantees Nos. BG No. 41/94-95 dated 17-11-1994 B.G. No. 42/94-95 dated 17-11-1994 and B.G. No. 43/94-95 dated 17-11-1994 issued by the second defendant and the second defendant from making any payment pursuant to the same.

(c) to grant such other reliefs requested for by the plaintiff and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper'. Pending the suit the Geo-Tech filed I.A. No. 1908 of 1998 praying for a temporary injunction restraining the HSCL from invoking the abovesaid Bank guarantees and the bank from making any payment pursuant to it. The said interim application has been dismissed by the court below on the ground that Geo-Tech failed to make out a prima facie case. Hence this appeal.

3. The factual situation behind the suit as as reflected from the plaint and the affidavit filed by the appellant is analysed hereunder in a condensed form.

The HSCL was the contractor for the work of 'Pile Foundation', 'Pile Caps', Site development works etc. in respect of the 'International Stadium' at Kaloor, Cochin owned by the Greater Cochin Development Authority. As per the Memorandum of understanding arrived at between the HSCL and Geo-Tech, the latter will be entrusted with the execution of the above work on successful finalisation of the tender and Geo-Tech will be the sub-contractor for executing it and a contract of agreement was executed between Geo-Tech and the HSCL, in consequence of which the HSCL awarded the work to the Geo-Tech as per letter of intent No. EDM/122-Cochin/94/292 dated 7-4-1994. The contract work was successfully completed by the Geo-Tech on 16-4-1996 and the defect liability period was over on 30-11-1996 and the security deposit was released to the Geo-Tech by the HSCL. Consequently the HSCL released the retention amount when the Geo-Tech executed three Bank guarantees for Rs. 5 lakhs each. Thus the total Bank guarantee for Rs. 15 lakhs has been issued by the Bank for the purpose of releasing the retention amount. Since the contract work was successfully completed and the defect liability period was over, the Geo-Tech wrote several letters to the HSCL requesting for the release of the Bank guarantees. However the HSCL was taking effective steps to invoke the Bank guarantees alleging that Geo-Tech had defaulted in remitting Rs. 14.20 lakhs towards the dues under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act. The Geo-Tech did not remit the dues as they had no liability to pay under the A