JUDGMENT :

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the application filed seeking an order of injunction pending disposal of the suit while rejecting the application for rejection of plaint. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, these appeals are filed by the first defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed, judgments produced and the written arguments of the first respondent.

4. Facts:

4.1. We believe an appropriate factual narration would substantially take care of the issues raised in these appeals.

4.2. A credit facility was extended by the third defendant – Indian Overseas Bank in favour of the plaintiff with its own Scheme of re-payment and terms and conditions attached. It was followed by a sanction letter which indicates collateral security as well. The reasons for granting of loan have also been indicated in the aforesaid communication.

4.3. An assignment agreement was entered into between the appellant/first defendant and the third defendant. Accordingly, the third defendant becomes the assignor and the appellant is the assignee. The agreement was signed on 31.08.2010 and duly registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar of Anna Nagar. The appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and registered as a Securitization and Asset Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act. The debts of the borrower, namely, the plaintiff in the suit are accordingly assigned. The assignment deed also indicates the details of financial documents pertaining to the plaintiff, which in turn, includes the agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds, confirmation letter for supplementary mortgage given for the properties situated in Bangalore along with its confirmation letter. Needless to state, the term loan originally given includes the utilization of the fund for the Bangalore project as well.

4.4. After the said assignment, the plaintiff executed a term-sheet dated 27.09.2010 admitting and acknowledging its liability and due for a sum of Rs.50.63 crores as on 31.08.2010. It was further agreed that the dues would be cleared within a period of two years. A deed of undertaking dated 11.10.2010 was executed by the plaintiff confirming to comply with the conditions stipulated thereunder. A deed of guarantee along with the memorandum of deposit of title deeds were also executed.

4.5. The plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated under the term sheet dated 27.09.2010 though certain amount of payment was made in instalments only in the month of September, 2011.

4.6. Under those circumstances, the appellant filed O.A.No.288 of 2014 under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the plaintiff in the present suit and others being the guarantors.

4.7. When the matter was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I at Chennai in O.A.No.288 of 2014, a strange incident occurred. The document executed by the plaintiff/respondent in favour of the appellant was presented before the Sub-Registrar of Bengaluru, State of Karnataka by an entity viz., “Anti Corruption Council of India” and on that, an order was passed to impound the document by way of a communication to the District Registrar, Bengaluru. The surprise element is compounded by the fact that neither the plaintiff nor the appellant was put on notice nor a copy marked, though it has been taken note of, filed and used as a sheet anchor by the plaintiff. This was put to challenge by the appellant before the High Court of Karnataka and the matter is stated to be pending with an interim order.

4.8. The drama unfolded did not end there. Taking umbrage under the said order and quoting