Dictated Order D.K. Seth, J. : An interim order invoking the Letter of Credit was granted ex parte on 6th April, 2001. Mr. Hirak Mitra, learned Counsel for the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. shortly HSBC had mentioned the matter. On 11th April the matter was taken up and the application for injunction was disposed of by continuing the interim order as is apparent from the order dated 11.4.2001. The ground on which the interim order was continued was that the shipping document was not in order and the negotiating bank in England being HSBC PLC had the responsibility of checking the document in view of the decision of the Apex Court with regard to its responsibility while accepting documents. The allegation was that in view of the defect in the shipping document the vessel was not allowed to be berthed in the Haldia Port and was about to move away and then the goods would be lost and the loss that would be suffered by the plaintiff could not be retrieved. The said order was supported by reasons as would be apparent from the order. 2. The defendant No.2 had appeared and mentioned the matter yesterday and pointed out that the vessel had already berthed and the cargo was being discharged but the said fact was suppressed. According to him it all started from 9.4.2001. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel for the HSBC had also produced certain documents which supported the counsel for the defendant No.2 and had pointed out that the foundation, on which the interim order rests, having disappeared and proved to be incorrect, the interim order cannot continue. Both these learned counsel had pointed out that the plaintiff had not come with clean hands and withheld information from the Court in order to lead the court to believe certain state of affair which weighed with the court in continuing the interim order. According to Mr. Mitra this is a sufficient ground for vacating the interim order. Since Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff had informed the court that he had no instruction and he wants to take instruction, the matter was adjourned yesterday. The documents on which the defendant No.2 had relied upon have since been placed on record today by means of affidavit. Certain other documents have also been placed which are taken on record. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff had informed the court that he had no instruction and he wants to take instruction, the matter was adjourned yesterday. The documents on which the defendant No.2 had relied upon have since been placed on record today by means of affidavit. Certain other documents have also been placed which are taken on record. This matter is being argued today and is being treated as on day's list by consent of the parties for the purpose of final disposal in view of the submission made by Mr. Chakraborty. 3. Mr. Chakraborty in his submission made it clear that he had received instruction that the cargo is being discharged after the vessel was allowed to be berthed by the Port Authority. Therefore, his client has already written a letter to the bank on 17.4.2001 stating that his account may be debited in terms of the Letter of Credit and that he would seek to obtain an order vacating the interim order and also the withdrawal of the suit. He had made an oral prayer that this matter should be treated as on day's list and after vacating the interim order the plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw the suit only with the leave that this withdrawal will not prevent the plaintiff from taking advantage of the arbitration clause contained in the contract in between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2, if he has any right under the same and if occasion so arise. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 on the other hand contends that the suit should not be allowed to be withdrawn. On the other hand the defendant No.2 should be allowed damages and interest since the defendant No.2 had suffered on account of continuance of the interim order for about 20 days and an appropriate order or decree should be passed to compensate the defendant No.2. Mr. Mitra, however, has not objected to the withdrawal of the suit. According to him his client is interested in vacating the interim order. Once the interim order is vacated his client would be entitled to take appropriate steps as permissible in law. 5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this court. From the submission made as well as the documents produced it appears that certain facts are clear. Once the interim order is vacated his client would be entitled to take appropriate steps as permissible in law. 5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this court. From the submission made as well as the documents produced it appears that certain facts are clear. The vessel was permitted to berth at Pier No.9 at Haldia Dock on 9.4.2001. The plaintiff surveyor had broad the vessel and carried out initial draft survey along with other surveyor of the insurance company. On 10.4.2001 cargo was checked on behalf of the plaintiff. It appears from a letter dated 9.4.2001 being annexure "C" to the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant No.2 addressed by Rusagro International Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff that there was telephonic discussions between the Rusagro International Pvt. Ltd. and the plaintiff with regard to MV LIMA 1. Pursuant to such telephonic discussion certificate by the Intercoastal Shipowners confirming P & I cover for MV LIMA I was enclosed along with the letter dated 9.4.2001. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff was aware that the MV LIMA I was not allowed by the Port Authorities to enter the port without P & I cover and that the best proof with regard to such cover was resolved to the satisfaction of the Port Authorities and the vessel was proceeding for berthing at the time of writing the letter. It is also pointed out that it was not the plaintiffs concern about the P & I cover and survey. The plaintiff was being requested to instruct its agent M/s. Lee and Muirhead to accept the Notice of Readiness, which was tendered to them earlier, and commence discharge operations without further delay. This is clear from the text of the said letter as quoted below : - 'Sub : MV "Lima I" With reference to' our telephonic discussions, kindly find enclosed herewith a certificate issued by "Intercoastal Ship-Owners" (on 2 pages) confirming P & I cover for MV "Lima I". You must be aware that MV "Lima I" was not allowed by post authorities to enter the port without P & I cover and the best proof that the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the port authorities is that the vessel is proceeding for berthing at this very moment. You must be aware that MV "Lima I" was not allowed by post authorities to enter the port without P & I cover and the best proof that the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the port authorities is that the vessel is proceeding for berthing at this very moment. You must also be aware that Ship-Owners do not have any money to pay for the first class P & I cover as well as for disbursement charges, which were covered by M/s. Starline Shipping. Hence "Paharpur's" insisting on vessel's obtaining first class P & I cover and survey to be conducted within next 6-8 days simply leads to nowhere and in fact is not receiver's concern. Therefore, you are requested to instruct your agents, "M/s. Lee and Muirhead" to accept Notice of Readiness tendered to them earlier and commence discharge operations without further delay. We request you to kindly inform us about your decision regarding further action against Ship Owners/MV "Lima I".' 6. On 10.4.2001 the same Rusagro International Private Limited had addressed another letter which runs as follows :- 'Sub: MV Lima-I Despite the content of your reply to our 01/F-I05/PSR dt. 09.04.01, we feel it would be proper to bring to your kind notice the following: 1. "Paharpur"s claim regarding absence of P & I cover for MV "Lima-I" does not have any ground as on date. 2. P&I cover is not at all a matter of concern of the receiver when the vessel is berthed and fully ready to discharge. 3. "Paharpur" is kept fully responsible for all time lost and any damages caused due to absence of arrangements to star discharge operations. We understood "Paharpur" did not pay custom duty and did not arrange gangs as on this moment. We urge you once again to take a constructive view on the matter so that this issue is resolved with minimum losses for your company.' 7. From the said two letters it appears that even before on 9.4.2001 the notice of readiness was tendered to the agent of the plaintiff but having not been accepted the said Rusagro had requested the plaintiff to instruct its agent to accept the notice of readiness and also to commence discharge of operation without further delay. From the said two letters it appears that even before on 9.4.2001 the notice of readiness was tendered to the agent of the plaintiff but having not been accepted the said Rusagro had requested the plaintiff to instruct its agent to accept the notice of readiness and also to commence discharge of operation without further delay. From the letter dated 10.4.2001 it appears that the plaintiff did not pay the custom duty nor it did arrange for gang for discharge of the cargo, the delay was due to absence of the arrangement for discharge operation. It was also pointed out that the vessel was berthed and was ready for discharge. 8. This fact is also apparent from the Letter of Protest by the Master of the ship contained at page 25 of this affidavit being part of annexure "c" which runs as follows : "NL BURUM LES 427121160-LIMA 12-APR-2001 04.33.49 959286 TO: PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD./CALCUTTA ATTN. MR. SUJIT SHOME (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT/FINANCE) CC: AOROSHIPPING/LONDON CC: LIMA SHIPPINGIISTANBUL ATN: SN: A. C. OUR CC: STARLINE/MADRAS ATTN: MR. JOSEPH STARR CC: COMPASS SHIPPING/HALDIA ATTN: MR. R. VENKITEGVARAN FM: MASTER OF MN LIMA-I 12.04.2001-00/119 LETTER OF PROTEST DEAR SIRS, MN LIMA-I (TCSD) HAS ARRIVED AND BERTHED AT PIER NO.9 AT 16.00 LT AND GANGWAY PLACED AT 16.18 LT HRS ON 9.4.2001. INITIAL DRAFT SURVEY AND CONTROL OF CARGO IN HATCHES CONDUCTED BETWEEN 17.15 LT HRS AND 18.15 LT HRS ON 9.4.2001 WITH THE ATTENDANCE OF OWNERS SURVEYORS MIS. J. B. BODA SURVEYORS PVT. LTD. AND CONSIGNEE/RECEIVERS SURVEYORS, SEASCAN SERVICES SURVEYORS. INSURANCE SURVEYORS AND INSPECTORATE GRAFFITH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [SHIPPING SURVEYORS]. AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE BROUGHT 4 GRABS ALONGSIDE THE VESSEL TO READY FOR DISCHARGING. BUT NO GANG BOOKING ARRANGED BY YOU AND DISCHARGING DIDN'T COMMENCE. WAITED FOR W/ALL HOLDS OPEN AND CRANES READY FOR DISCHARGING. ON 10.4.2001 AT THE MORNING TIME A SURVEYOR [NAMED B. B. GHOSH FROM GRIFFITH] CAME ON BOARD CHECKED THE CARGO AGAIN AND ASKED WHY WE DIDN'T COMMENCE DISCHARGE DUE TO CARGO WAS CLEAN AND READY. ALL DAY LONG ON 10.4.2001 WE WAITED FOR COMMENCE DISCHARGING WITH ALL HOLDS WERE OPEN AND READY. AND YOU NEVER APPROACHED TO INFORM WHEN DISCH. WL COMMENCE. ON THE DATE OF 11.4.2001 HALDIA PORT AUTHORITY SHIFTED THE VESSEL FROM PIER NO.9 TO BERTH NO.5 [DOUBLE BANKING] DUE TO YOU DIDN'T COMMENCE DISCH. AND MEANWHILE TO CONTAINER SHIP COMING. ALL DAY LONG ON 10.4.2001 WE WAITED FOR COMMENCE DISCHARGING WITH ALL HOLDS WERE OPEN AND READY. AND YOU NEVER APPROACHED TO INFORM WHEN DISCH. WL COMMENCE. ON THE DATE OF 11.4.2001 HALDIA PORT AUTHORITY SHIFTED THE VESSEL FROM PIER NO.9 TO BERTH NO.5 [DOUBLE BANKING] DUE TO YOU DIDN'T COMMENCE DISCH. AND MEANWHILE TO CONTAINER SHIP COMING. ON THE SAME DATE THE SURVEYOR OF OUR NEW P.I.CLUB CAME ON BOARD AND WE CONDUCTED THE PRELIMINARY CONDITION SURVEY AS USUAL, ALSO SAID THAT SURVEY WILL CONTINUE ON THE DATES OF NEARLY COMPLETION OF DISCHARGING. I HEARD THAT YOU ARE CLOSELY INTERESTING OUR CONDITION SURVEY WHICH NEVER INTEREST YOU IN ANY WAY. BECAUSE YOUR CARGO HERE 'CLEAN' SURVEYED AND READY TO DISCHARGE. THE USUAL CONDITION SURVEY OF P.I. CLUB IS OUR BUSINESS AND IT IS OUT OF YOUR INTEREST AREA KINDLY REQUEST SPEND YOUR EFFORTS COMMENCING DISCHARGE YOUR CARGO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE NOT TO CAUSE ANY FURTHER DELAYS. SO HEREBY NOTE THIS PROTEST AND HOLD YOU FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DELAYS. DETENSIONS, SHIFTING CHARGES. ALL EXPENSES AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES ARISING YOUR ABOVE ACTION AND RESERVING THE ALL JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS OF MY OWNER AND ME, MY CREW, MY VESSEL TO EXTEND THE GAME AT THE TIME AND PLACE AND/OR COURT CONVENIENT. NOTE: KINDLY REQUEST AGROSHIPPING/LONDON TO DEAL WITH THIS MATTER." 9. From the said Letter of Protest it appears that the vessel had berthed at Pier No.9 at 16.10 hours on 9th April, 2001. Initial Draft survey and control of cargo in hatches was conducted between 17.15 hours and 18.15 hours on 9th April, 2001 with the attendance of the plaintiffs' surveyor, M/ s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and consignee/receiver's surveyors, Seascan Services Surveyors, Insurance Surveyors and Inspectorate Griffith (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Shippers Surveyors]. At the same time though the plaintiff had brought four grabs alongside the vessel to be ready for discharging, but no gang booking was arranged. And, therefore, discharge did not commence. The vessel waited for the whole day with all holds open and cranes ready for discharge. On 10th April, 2001 in the morning the Surveyor, Mr. B.B. Ghosh from Graffith came on board and checked the cargo again and asked why discharge did not commence though the cargo was clean and ready. The vessel waited for the whole day on 10.4.2001 for commencement of discharging with all holds open and ready. On 10th April, 2001 in the morning the Surveyor, Mr. B.B. Ghosh from Graffith came on board and checked the cargo again and asked why discharge did not commence though the cargo was clean and ready. The vessel waited for the whole day on 10.4.2001 for commencement of discharging with all holds open and ready. But the plaintiff did not inform about the commencement of discharge. On 11th April, 2001, the Port Authorities shifted the vessel from Pier No .9 to berth No.5 since discharge was not commenced and that some container• ships were coming. On the same date surveyor of New PI Club came on board and conducted the preliminary condition survey as usual. It was pointed out that the plaintiff was closely interested with the survey though the plaintiff need not be so interested. Therefore, plaintiff was requested to commence discharge of the cargo without any further delay. 10. All these three letters show that the cargo had reached the Port on 9th and was ready for discharge at least on 10th and that this information was well-known to the plaintiff. When the matter was being taken up on 11th this information was not disclosed before the Court. The plaintiff had insisted on the injunction to continue. The plaintiff cannot contend that he was not aware of these facts and no explanation would suffice the reasons for withholding the information from the Court. Thus prima facie it appears that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. This ground is sufficient to vacate the interim order. 11. However, Mr. Chakraborty, in his usual fairness, has contended that the interim order should be vacated and the plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the suit. In the letter dated 17.4.2001, the plaintiff had requested the defendant No.2, that the interim order may be vacated and the suit may be withdrawn and their account may be debited by the HSBC .This letter was addressed by the advocate on record of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be contended that when this matter was mentioned yesterday 23.4.2001 the advocate on record for the plaintiff did not have any instruction with regard to the discharge of the cargo. The advocate on record for the plaintiff has also not behaved properly in imparting instruction to Mr.Chakraborty. Therefore, it cannot be contended that when this matter was mentioned yesterday 23.4.2001 the advocate on record for the plaintiff did not have any instruction with regard to the discharge of the cargo. The advocate on record for the plaintiff has also not behaved properly in imparting instruction to Mr.Chakraborty. Since the advocate on record of the plaintiff had addressed the said letter, he was well aware of the situation since 17th April, 2001. Therefore, there could not be any ground to suppress this information by the advocate on record yesterday i.e. 23rd of April, 2001 when the matter was being mentioned. 12. From the facts as disclosed above it appears that the plaintiff was much more interested in continuing the interim order on a ground which was non-est and insisted that the court should believe the ground as advanced before it upon suppression of the facts. If these facts were made available to the court, in that event on 11th April, 2001 the interim order would not have been continued. The plaintiff insisted in the continuation of the interim order despite there being no ground. As contended by Mr.Chakraborty the plaintiff might have some ground as against the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 might have been responsible for bringing about the situation. But those questions are neither here nor there so far as the scope of the present suit is concerned. This suit was primarily against HSBC with regard to the invocation of the Letter of Credit. It has nothing to do with the principle contract. 13. So far as the HSBC is concerned it is not interested in the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. Whether they have any claim as against each other, is not a matter of any interest to the HSBC. Its concern is by reason of the interim order obtained on 11th April, 2001 on the basis of certain facts which were not available to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff might have some grounds as on 6th April, 2001, but in order to get continuance of the interim order those grounds did not exist on 11th April, 2001. Whether the goods were covered by insurance or not or whether the goods will be delivered in order or not, is no concern so far as the invocation of the Letter of Credit is concerned. 14. Whether the goods were covered by insurance or not or whether the goods will be delivered in order or not, is no concern so far as the invocation of the Letter of Credit is concerned. 14. Be that as it may, it may be noted that in the letter dated 30.1.2001, which was received by the bank only on 6th April,2001, the plaintiff had sought to bring to the notice of the bank that there was some defects in the shipping documents particularly shipping certificate. But before the said letter was delivered to the bank the plaintiff in no uncertain terms informed the bank, in its letter dated 26th December, 2000, that it had accepted the documents and ignored the defects, if any, and authorised the Bank to debit its current account. 15. Thus it appears that the plaintiff had sought to create a ground by the letter dated 30.01.2001 which was delivered to the Bank on 6.04.2001. There cannot be any earthly reason as to why the letter dated 30.01.2001 would be delivered to the HSBC on 6.04.2001. Such a conduct presupposes that this letter dated 30.01.2001 was manufactured only to mislead the Court without pointing out that this letter was delivered to the HSBC on 6.04.2001. This letter was one of the factor which weighed with the Court in favour of granting the interim order. Therefore, the plaintiff had misused the said document without disclosing in the affidavit that this letter was delivered to the HSBC on 6.04.2001. 16. The interim order was granted on 6.4.2001 on the ground that the plaintiff was able to make out prima facie case of fraud with regard to the shipping certificate and that the vessel will not be allowed to birth at Haldia Port and would go away with the cargo and then the goods would be lost to the plaintiff and could not be retrieved. The defendant No.2 was responsible for the situation. It was the defendant No.2 who had furnished the Shipping document to HSBC PLC. Thus prima facie there was fraud on the part of the defendant No.2. These grounds prima facie existed on 6.4.2001. 17. But these grounds were not in existence on 11.4.2001. Inasmuch as the vessel was berthed on 9.4.2001 at Haldia Port. The Cargo was ready to discharge. The plaintiffs agent was given notice of readiness. But the agent did not accept the notice. These grounds prima facie existed on 6.4.2001. 17. But these grounds were not in existence on 11.4.2001. Inasmuch as the vessel was berthed on 9.4.2001 at Haldia Port. The Cargo was ready to discharge. The plaintiffs agent was given notice of readiness. But the agent did not accept the notice. Plaintiff was well-informed of the situation. It so appears from the documents disclosed in annexure 'c' series of the affidavit of the defendant No.2. These facts are not being denied now by the plaintiff. When the Cargo was ready to discharge plaintiff had no concern with the insurance with P & I class. It was necessary for berthing in Haldia Port. Once the vessel was berthed plaintiff cannot have anything to do with the insurance of the vessel. It's only interest was in the Cargo. When the Cargo was ready to discharge it ought to have arranged discharged thereof. On the other hand it delayed the process. Until 11.4.2001 it did not arrange for discharge. 18. As soon the vessel was berthed at Haldia Port and the Cargo was ready to discharge the ground of irretriveable loss had fallen through and could no more be pleaded. It was one of the ground that weighed with the court for extending the interim order on 11.4.2001. Despite having knowledge of these facts the plaintiff had withheld the information from the Court. This was presumably done by the plaintiff for obtaining extension of the interim order. It seems the plaintiff knowing fully well had suppressed these facts with deliberate intention to represent before the court in order to make the court believe something which to the knowledge of the plaintiff was incorrect. Whether this situation attracts section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not may not be gone into now. 19. The other ground on which the interim order was extended was the defect in the Shipping certificate. It was observed relying on the decision of the Apex Court referred to therein that the HSBC (PLC) had also a responsibility to be cautious before accepting documents. In this case HSBC PLC had failed to exercise such caution. The defect in the Shipping document was apparent on the face of it. It did not conform to the condition of the Letter of Credit. It could be deciphered by HSBC PLC if it had exercised due caution. This HSBC PLC had failed. In this case HSBC PLC had failed to exercise such caution. The defect in the Shipping document was apparent on the face of it. It did not conform to the condition of the Letter of Credit. It could be deciphered by HSBC PLC if it had exercised due caution. This HSBC PLC had failed. Therefore this case satisfied the test of exceptions in which injunction could be granted against invocation of Letter of Credit. The defect in the Shipping document would prevent the vessel from entering the Haldia Port since it was not insured with P & I club. Unless the vessel is allowed to enter the Port the Cargo could not be discharged. The plaintiff would not be able to receive the Cargo at Haldia Port interms of the contract. This was the reason why specific condition was included in the Letter of Credit. 20. But as soon as the Vessel was berthed, the defect in the Shipping document became irrelevant and immaterial for the plaintiff. The purpose was to facilitate delivery of the goods. When the goods were ready to discharge, the plaintiff had no reason to insist upon the defect in the Shipping document. In other words the Shipping document was no more defective. 21. This situation was accepted by the plaintiff in its letter dated 26th December, 2000 produced by Mr.Hirak Mitra and taken on record by order dated 11.4.2001. The plaintiff had confirmed its acceptance of the discrepancies, if any, in original Shipping documents and authorised HSBC to debit the amount under the Letter of Credit in its current account. The plaintiff had also faxed to HSBC PLC accepting the Shipping document without any objection as would appear from a copy fax, produced by Mr.Hirak Mitra, which were taken on record by order dated' 11.4.2001. In the said fax plaintiff had authorised debiting its current account No.031-219132-001 with HSBC. 22. Mr.Hirak Mitra on 11.4.2001 emphasised on this acceptance and contended that once having accepted the plaintiff could not take a different stand. But the said contention was overruled on the basis of discovery of fraud and irretriveable loss based on the plaintiffs letter dated 30.1.2001. In the said letter dated 30.1.2001 fraud was alleged. In the order dated 11.4.2001 it was observed that when the acceptance of the documents were acknowledged the fraud could not be discovered. But the said contention was overruled on the basis of discovery of fraud and irretriveable loss based on the plaintiffs letter dated 30.1.2001. In the said letter dated 30.1.2001 fraud was alleged. In the order dated 11.4.2001 it was observed that when the acceptance of the documents were acknowledged the fraud could not be discovered. But as soon it was discovered the same was intimated. But the fact remains, as observed earlier, that though the said letter was dated 30.1.2001 but the same was delivered to HSBC only on 6.4.2001 viz. the date when the interim order was obtained. This document has been used by the plaintiff in its affidavit knowing fully well that the document was not true, particularly the date and that it was being used in a proceeding before a Court having reason to believe it not to be true. Whether this attracts section 340 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary to go into now. Thus the ground of fraud as pleaded on 11.4.2001 was also not in existence within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Yet it had insisted upon continuation of the interim order suppressing material facts. 23. The Court has always looked down upon misconduct of a party, false affidavit and suppression of facts. In order to prevent such a demeanour section 195 of Indian Penal Code has since been engrafted. When it relates to a Court Proceedings it may be taken care of under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court and our High Court have depricated consistently such an attitude of a party in a proceedings. In the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Hariyana, AIR 1995 SC 1795 , the Supreme Court had observed that false affidavit turnishes the majesty of law. In Chandra Sashi vs. Anil Kr. Verma, 1995(1) SCC 421 , the Apex Court had observed that if anything is done with oblique motive the same is interference with the administration of Justice. Similarly this is depricated in the case of Panchugopal Barua vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami, 1997 AIR SCW 1035; Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 622 . In Welcom Hotel and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1983(4) SCC 575, the Supreme Court did not approve the unfair advantage taken by suppressing fact in para 10 of the said judgement. Vijay Kumar Kathuria vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 622 . In Welcom Hotel and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1983(4) SCC 575, the Supreme Court did not approve the unfair advantage taken by suppressing fact in para 10 of the said judgement. Our High Court had also taken a similar view in the case of Administration in Estate of Late N.C.Goenka vs. State of West Bengal, 1976 (2) CLJ 162. 24. Thus from the facts disclosed it appears that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. That apart even on merit as discussed above the interim order could not have been extended on the basis of the fact as it stood on 11.4.2001 as discussed above. In the circumstances, the interim order is vacated and is hereby discharged. 25. Since Mr.Chakraborty has prayed that he may be permitted to withdraw the suit, by consent of the parties, the suit is treated as on the day's list and is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, this order will not prevent the Bank to realise its claims as permissible' in law either from the defendant No.1 or from the defendant No.2 by HSBC or the negotiating Bank HSBC (PLC) as the case may be. This order also will not prevent the rights between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 as against each other under the contract to be enforced between themselves without involving HSBC and the negotiating Bank, HSBC (PLC). The cost is assessed at 300 Gms. to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1. 26. All parties concerned including HSBC PLC are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of the operative portion of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking. Interim order vacated and suit dismissed as withdrawn.