( 1 ) THESE SLPs have been preferred against the order of the High Court dated 13-7-1999 whereby the High Court admitted FAO No. 37 of 1999 and directed that the hearing should be expedited and interim order dated 15-2-1999 was to continue to operate till the final disposal of the FAO. ( 2 ) THE matter relates to encashment of four bank guarantees by the petitioners in these SLPs. The bank guarantees had been invoked on 13-1-1998 but the bankers are said to have asked the petitioners to come after two days and the amount was not released. It was alleged that the petitioner was incurring heavy losses on account of non-commissioning of the project by the respondent DLF Industries Ltd. On 14-1-1998 the Central Bank of India issued two cheques of Rs 65,30,100 and Rs 13,50,000. ABN Ambro Bank issued pay order in favour of the petitioner for Rs 1. 15 crores, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank issued cashier orders for Rs 7,10,000 in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) BEFORE the cheques could be encashed, the respondent DLF Industries ltd. filed OMPs Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 1998 on 15-1-1998 to restrain the banks from encashing the bank guarantee. The learned Single Judge of the high Court passed an order of injunction on 16-1-1998 directing the Banks not to clear the cheques. ( 4 ) AFTER the pleadings were completed arguments were heard by the learned Single Judge on 2-2-1998, 6-3-1998 and arguments were concluded. Written submissions were also filed thereafter. Considerable time lapsed. The learned Single Judge pronounced judgment on 4-2-1999 allowing OMP no. 20 of 1998, partly allowing OMP No. 21 of 1998 and dismissing OMP no. 22 of 1998. ( 5 ) FAO No. 37 of 1999 was filed by DLF Industries against the part of the order dismissing OMP No. 22 of 1998 while FAOs Nos. 45-46 were filed by the petitioner against that part of the order allowing OMP No. 20 of 1998 and partly allowing OMP No. 21 of 1998. FAO No. 47 of 1999 was also tiled, claiming interest on the bank guarantee. ( 6 ) FAO No. 37 of 1999 was listed initially before a Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice. FAO No. 47 of 1999 was also tiled, claiming interest on the bank guarantee. ( 6 ) FAO No. 37 of 1999 was listed initially before a Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice. Notice was issued and a status quo order was granted on 15-2-1999 with regard to encashment of bank guarantee of Rs 1. 15 crores. On 10-3-1999 it is stated that the counsel for the respondent DLF Industries prayed for an adjournment. It was made clear in the order that no further adjournment would be prayed for nor granted on the next date of hearing. The matter was listed on 23-3-1999. But on that day a request was made on behalf of the learned counsel for DLF Industries Ltd. on the strength of medical certificate that the counsel had been advised 3 days rest. The matter was adjourned to 6-4-1999. In the meantime, interim order granting stay of encashment of bank guarantee to the extent of Rs 1. 15 crores, continued. On 6-4-1999 the matter was listed before another Division bench consisting of Arun Kumar and Manmohan Sarin,. JJ. and the following order was passed:"we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr Seth, counsel for appellant prays that he may be allowed to file a note of written submissions which will cover all the 4 connected appeals. Let Mr seth file a comprehensive note by 12-4-1999 with advance copy to the counsel appearing for the respondents. List this matter for further direction on 13-4-1999. Interim orders to continue till next date. " ( 7 ) THE matter was adjourned to 13-4-1999. On 28-4-1999 the same division Bench passed the following order:"list on 11-5-1999. Interim order to continue till the next date. " ( 8 ) IT appears that the said Division Bench was hearing certain other matters namely Telecom matters and the matter came up before that Bench on 17-5-1999 and the following order was passed:"not to be treated as part-heard. Be notified on 13-7-1999. Interim order to continue. " ( 9 ) IT will be noticed from the order dated 6-4-1999 itself, the said division Bench heard the learned counsel for M/s Atul Limited and also allowed the counsel for DLF Industries to file written submissions. Be notified on 13-7-1999. Interim order to continue. " ( 9 ) IT will be noticed from the order dated 6-4-1999 itself, the said division Bench heard the learned counsel for M/s Atul Limited and also allowed the counsel for DLF Industries to file written submissions. But in view of the fact that the Bench was hearing the Telecom matters, and particularly because the summer vacation was nearing, the Division Bench passed the aforesaid order on 17-5-1999 stating that the matter would not be treated as part-heard and was to be notified on 13-7-1999. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the matter came up to be listed before another Division bench of the High Court, and on that day the present impugned order admitting the appeal and expediting the matter and granting stay of the encashment of the bank guarantee of Rs 1. 15 crores, was passed. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred. ( 11 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The SLPs before us are only against an interim order granting stay of encashment to the extent permitted by the learned Single judge and continuing the same pending disposal of the FAO: The main FAO is pending in the High Court. ( 12 ) FROM the facts set out above, it is clear that the FAOs were heard by one Division Bench of the High Court for a considerable length of time and after conclusion of arguments, written submissions were also filed but in view of some other matters before the said Division Bench it could not find time to pass final orders in these FAOs. It was at that stage the matter was directed not to be treated as part-heard and was listed before another Division bench which admitted the appeal and passed order for expeditious hearing of the FAO. ( 13 ) IN matters relating to bank guarantees, it is necessary that there should be expeditious hearing at the interlocutory stage. Orders passed in the interlocutory applications have considerable impact on the business transactions of the parties and the projects on hand. ( 13 ) IN matters relating to bank guarantees, it is necessary that there should be expeditious hearing at the interlocutory stage. Orders passed in the interlocutory applications have considerable impact on the business transactions of the parties and the projects on hand. ( 14 ) IN the above circumstances referred to in the present case, the matter having already been heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and also written submissions having been filed, we are of the view that, the High court should be suggested to hear the FAO as expeditiously as possible and dispose of them. ( 15 ) A contention was raised before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in these appeals against interim order passed in FAO granting stay of encashment, having regard to the long delay in the disposal of the matters, we should adjudicate upon the very right of encashment. In other words, learned Senior Counsel wanted us to deal with the subject matter of the FAOs pending in the High Court. ( 16 ) WE do not think it appropriate to accede to this contention. We. would adjourn the matters before us and we would request the High Court to deal with the FAOs expeditiously. We therefore, direct the Registrar of the High court to place the files in the FAOs before the learned Chief Justice of the delhi High Court for listing the matter before a Division Bench for expeditious disposal of the appeal. ( 17 ) WHILE considering the question of listing the appeals at an early date, the learned Chief Justice may kindly take into consideration the fact that the matter was previously argued before a Division Bench and written submissions were also filed and later that Bench could not finalise the matters, on account of other pending work. ( 18 ) WE, therefore, adjourn the special leave petitions which are filed against the interlocutory orders by three months. In the meantime, we are sure that the High Court will be able to dispose of these appeals expeditiously. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties state that they will not seek any adjournment on any ground whatsoever when the matters are listed before the division Bench of the High Court. ( 20 ) THE SLPs are adjourned by three months.