S.C.MOHAPATRA, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 -(r) CPC against an order refusing to grant temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff by vacating ad interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court.
(2.)PLAINTIFF is a company which has been registered to carry on the business of production and supply of Charge Chrome. Electrical energy is necessary for such production Therefore, it entered into agreement with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 a consortium of Foreign Organisation to set up a captive power plant of 108 M W capacity for generating 700 million units of energy in the minimum annually. Defendant No. 4 a foreign banker for self and agent of defendant Nos. 5 to 11 Other foreign bankers agreed to finance the setting up of captive power plant. Defendant No. 12 gave guarantee to defendant No. 4 on behalf of plaintiff for payment of the loan amount to plaintiff. Defendant No 13 gave guarentee to defendant No. 12 on behalf of plaintiff for payment of the amount to defendant No. 12. Agreements were entered into in this regard.
Defendant No. 1 was to supply the turbines, defendant No. 2 was to supply boiler and defendant No. 3 were to execute work of setting up of the captive power plant. They were acting in consortium. Before entering into agreements, project report and feasibility report were prepared. It was decided that the production of electrical energy would be based on Talcher Coal. In the project report and the feasibility report, it was provided that the captive power plant would produce electricity, a portion of which would be consumed for production of Charge Chrome and the balance would be sold. Repayment was also envisaged on cash flow basis.

(3.)AFTER the captive power plant was commissioned plaintiff found that it is not of 108 M W. capacity. Hardly it was 60 M. W capacity. It generated electricity much less than the minimum assured units. During execution of the work, several defects were round and were brought to notice of the consortium which assured to rectify the same. Lastly the consortium offered a package deal believing which plaintiff gave the take - over certificate On basis of such take -over certificate and other clearances given defendant No. 4 paid the amounts agreed upon to the consortium. Thereafter, consortium backed out from the offer of package deal. From the conduct of the consortium plaintiff came to conclusion that fraud has been practised on it. Since as per agreements loan amounts were to be realised from it, a suit has been filed for declaration that the take -over certificate granted by it is void and voidable and other reliefs against defendant Nos, 1 to 12. An application for temporary injunction was filed on basis of which ad interim injunction was granted which was however, vacated by the impugned order. Against the ad interim order of injunction, defendant No. 12 filed an appeal which having become infructuous on account of the interim order has been dismissed.