( 1. ) THIS appeal under Order 41, Rule 1 (r), Civil Procedure Code is filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the order dated 18-3-1987 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal whereby injunction as sought for against the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh for encashment of Bank guarantee furnished by the appellant in favour of the respondent No. 1, State of Madhya Pradesh for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, has been rejected.

( 2. ) IN short, the appellant filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts including claiming various reliefs. Though notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code was served, yet the appellant felt urgency in seeking injunctio, therefore, an application under sub-section (2) of section 80, Civil Procedure Code was made for taking leave of the Court for granting interim relief in his favour before expiry of the statutory period of 60 days, as contemplated under section 80, Civil Procedure Code.

( 3. ) THE learned Trial Judge as such issued notice to the State Government and decided the application by the impugned order whereby not only that interlocutory application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected but by exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 80, Civil Procedure Code, the plaint was also returned for presentation to it after complying with the requirement of sub-section (1) of section 80, Civil Procedure Code. It is against this Order that the present appeal has been filed.

( 4. ) SHRI N. S. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has furnished a Bank Guarantee on 31-5-1984 for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in accordance with the clause (ii) of the agreement dated 12-12-1983 which runs thus:

"for the due performance and observance of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the purchaser shall furnish to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Production), Madhya Pradesh, cash security for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs only) on which no interest shall be payable by the Governor : PROVIDED THAT the purchaser may, in lieu of cash security furnish a bank guarantee of any nationalised bank in such form as may be approved by the Governor. The bank guarantee shall be renewed by the purchaser from year to year until 12 months after the date of expiry of this agreement, but in the event of aforesaid bank guarantee not being renewed or its lapsing for any reason whatsoever, the purchaser shall immediately furnish cash security for the above mentioned amount and, until it is done, it shall not be entitled to any privilege or facility under this agreement. "

Further, Shri Kale submitted that the said Bank Guarantee was renewed from time to time and extended upto 31-3-1986 and then upto 31-3-1987. However, it is submitted by Shri Kale that no sal seeds, as per agreement were supplied to the appellant and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to encash the Bank Guarantee, so furnished by the appellant.

( 5. ) ON behalf of the State/respondent No. 1 it is submitted that sal seeds were supplied to the appellant. It is further submitted that the period as extended from year to year was just to enable the State of Madhya Pradesh to recover any amount due to the previous year. While giving reference of letter dated 23-10-1986, addressed to the State of Madhya Pradesh by the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has accepted this position that anything whatsoever due pertaining to the year 1985 towards sal-seed supply, the same can be recovered from the amount of the Bank Guarantee. In pursuance thereof the State Government is encashing the Bank Guarantee. Therefore, it is submitted that the trial Court has rightly reached the conclusion that there was no prima facie case made out by the appellant for invoking jurisdiction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code for grant of injunction in favour of the appellant. Thus, the trial Court has rightly rejec