1. - This appeal is the glaring example of misuse and abuse of process of law at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff, whereby the appellant has not only taken the High Court and the trial court for a ride but has also misled the courts by suppressing the material facts for obtaining the ex-parte ad-interim orders against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, tent amounting to playing fraud on Court.

2. The present appeal filed under Or. XLIII Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. arises out of the order dated 11.4.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur,(hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Misc. Application No. 1/2011, whereby the trial court has rejected the said application of the appellant-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction against the respondents-defendants with costs of Rs. 1100/-. This Court had called for the record of the case from the trial court and also the record of the writ petition being No. 11970/2011, filed by the appellant earlier, which have been perused by the Court.

3. At the out-set, it is necessary to mention the chronological dates and events of the case, which have constrained the Court to come to the conclusion that there was gross misuse and abuse of process of law at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff.3(i) In response to the proposal made by respondent No.3- Company to the appellant-company for appointment of Super Distributor for the supply of patented Fire Killers for the State of Rajasthan, the appellant had accepted the said proposal as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 24.1.2011. Accordingly the respondent No.3, appointed the appellant company as the Distributor for the supply of patented Fire Killers for the State of Rajasthan. The appellant company also got issued an irrevocable letter of credit dated 6.5.2011, for Rs. 1,22,50,000/-, in favour of the respondent No.3- company through the respondent No. 1 Bank as desired by the respondent No. 3. The said letter of credit was valid for 90 days from invoice date, which was extended till 5.9.2011. The respondent No. 2 was the banker of the respondent No.3 and also the negotiating bank. It appears that the respondent No. 3 Company pursuant to the said agreement supplied the goods to the appellant and submitted the Bills/documents to the respondent No. 2 bank for payment. The said Bills/documents were further sent to the respondent No. 1 Bank for confirmation. On 30.7.2011, the respondent No. 1 Bank issued confirmation/acceptance to the respondent No.2 Bank and also accepted the documents presented by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 Bank also undertook to make payment to the respondent No.2 under the letter of credit on the due date i.e. on 5.9.2011. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 Bank negotiated the documents and made payment to the respondent No. 3 company.3(ii) The appellant company filed the writ petition being No. 11970/2011 against the respondents on 6.9.2011, seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent No.1 bank not to transfer the amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/-, mentioned in the letter of credit dated 6.5.2011 to the respondent No. 2 bank, and against the respondent No. 2 bank to take immediate action regarding extension of time limit of the letter of credit dated 6.5.2011. In the said writ petition, the Court passed following order on 9.9.2011:-

"It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 Darvesh Fire @ Safety Industries Pvt. Ltd. Company have agreed for the extension of letter of credit for 90 days, which is clear from email message dated 5th September, 2011 (Annexure-6) and petitioner has already issued instructions to his Banker-Oriental Bank of Commerce-respondent No.1, vide letter dated 5th September, 2011(Annexure-9),but respondent No. 1 is not extending the letter of credit and is adamant to send amount in question to respondent No. 3. Issue Notice to respondents,