Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. - (1.) This appeal is from an order dated 25th June, 1976 passed by the Court below recalling the order of dismissal of the suit upon condition that the plaintiff would deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 in cash with the Registrar of this Court and in default thereof, directing the plaintiff's application for restoration of the suit to stand dismissed for non-prosecution with no order as to costs.
(2.) The operative part of the order reads as follows :-- "It is ordered that upon the plaintiff depositing on or before the second day of July next the sum of Rupees Seven Lacs and fifty thousand in cash only with the Registrar of this Court the order of dismissal of suit dated the Eighth day of June instant be recalled and that this suit shall appear in the list on the fifth day of July next. And it is further ordered that the interim order of the appeal court shall continue till one week from the date hereof and that the parties herein be at liberty to mention before this Court for having an early date fixed for hearing of this suit. And it is further ordered that in default of furnishing such security within the time as aforesaid this application shall stand dismissed. And it is further ordered that in any event the plaintiff do pay to the parties appearing as aforesaid their respective costs of and incidental to this application to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court. And it is further ordered that all parties concerned do act on a copy of the minutes of this order signed by an officer of this Court being served upon them."
(3.) The suit herein has been filed on 23rd Sept, 1965, inter alia, for a decree declaring the bond dated 31st October, 1963 and its purported extensions void and for an order directing the said bond to be delivered up and cancelled. There are also prayers for ancillary relief by way of perpetual injunction in respect of the said bond. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the said bond was executed in terms of a clause in the global tender which required the execution of such a bond. Accordingly, the said bond was furnished in favour of the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Punjab National Bank for the sum of Rs. 27,60,000. Thereafter, disputes arose by and between the plaintiff and the State of Uttar Pradesh in which the plaintiff contended that the bond should be delivered up and cancelled but the said defendant contended that the same should be enforced. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed this suit and prayed for its cancellation. The State of Uttar Pradesh was thereafter added as a party to this suit.;