Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 2 dated 21st September, 2016 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1232 of 2016 at the instance of the defendant no.2/appellant. 2. By the impugned order, the defendant nos. 1 and 3 were restrained from making any payment in any form whatsoever direct or indirect against the letter of credit No. 0036316DL0000004 dated 10th March, 2016 being annexure ‘D’ for a sum in excess of Rs. 41,92,000/- till 3rd November, 2016. The instant first miscellaneous appeal is directed against the said ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge. 3. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 5th October, 2016. However, ad interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Judge, was not stayed by this Court pending disposal of the appeal. The appellant was directed to serve copy of the memorandum of appeal as well as application for stay upon the respondents. Such service was effected. 4. Today when the said application for stay was taken up for hearing, we are requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit on the basis of the materials on record. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all relevant papers which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are annexed to the stay application. 5. We are also informed that the ad interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Judge on 29th September, 2016, was subsequently extended by the learned Trial Judge in the presence of both the parties. The interim order of injunction which was so passed by the learned Trial Judge, is continuing in view of the subsequent order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 3rd November, 2016. 6. The legality and/or propriety of the said order dated 3rd November, 2016 is also under challenge in another appeal being F.M.A.T. 1207 of 2016 filed by the defendant no.2/appellant. 7. We are also requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to hear out the said appeal on merit by treating the same as on the day’s list. 8. The legality and/or propriety of the said order dated 3rd November, 2016 is also under challenge in another appeal being F.M.A.T. 1207 of 2016 filed by the defendant no.2/appellant. 7. We are also requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to hear out the said appeal on merit by treating the same as on the day’s list. 8. As such, we have admitted the said appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure formally and have also decided to hear out both the appeals on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 9. The Indian Bank being the banker of the plaintiff’s company is represented by Mr. Fazlul Haque, learned advocate. The other Bank being Bank of India being the banker of the defendant no.2/appellant does not appear in spite of service. 10. As such, we have decided to hear out this appeal even in the absence of the respondent no.3. 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties who addressed us elaborately on the merit of the appeal. We have considered the materials on record. We are considering the legality of the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge. We cannot consider any other pleadings and/or documents save and except the pleadings made out by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the injunction application and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in its pleadings. 12. As such, we, while considering the legality of the impugned order, restrict our consideration with regard to the pleadings of the plaintiff made out in the plaint as well as in the injunction application and the documents which were made part of such pleadings. 13. Since the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction is yet to be decided on merit after exchange of affidavits between the parties, we feel that any observation which may be made by this Court with regard to the merit of this injunction application, may ultimately influence the learned Trial Judge while deciding the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. 14. As such, we think that justice will be subserved if, instead of considering the merit of this plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction elaborately, we decide the merit of the appeal on the face of the pleadings available before us. 15. 14. As such, we think that justice will be subserved if, instead of considering the merit of this plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction elaborately, we decide the merit of the appeal on the face of the pleadings available before us. 15. Here is the case where we find that as per the three purchase orders, the plaintiff was required to supply certain number of bogies assembly for ladle transfer car as per sarralle specification and as per negotiated offer and/or raw material specification and sarralle approved DRG. 16. Admittedly, the defendant no.2/appellant supplied the assembled bogies of ladle car to the plaintiff which the plaintiff ultimately supplied to its ultimate customer being JSW steel. Fact remains that on receipt of those assembled bogies from the defendant no.2, the plaintiff, relying upon the representation and acting on the assurance given by the defendant no.2 in their Bank guarantee, issued quality assurance certificates in favour of the defendant no.2 and agreed to accept the guarantee certificate issued by the defendant no.2 in respect of the 128 number of bearings for the time being till the original guarantee certificates were being obtained and provided to by the defendant no.2. 17. Dispute between the parties, as it appears to us, cropped up with regard to use of 128 number of bearings fitted in the assembled bogies by the defendant no.2/appellant. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant no.2/appellant did not use genuine bearings manufactured by FAG. It was alleged by the plaintiff that as per the purchase order, the defendant no.2 was required to use the bearings manufactured by FAG. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the bearings which were fitted to the assembled bogies were not genuine bearings manufactured and/or supplied by FAG. It is further alleged that those bearings are duplicate and/or spurious. 18. As a result, the purchaser of those bogies from the plaintiff which is the ultimate user of the goods supplied by the defendant no.2/appellant, complained about the defective supply. 19. It is further alleged that on such complaint being received from the purchaser of those bogies from the plaintiff, inspection was held by FAG which also confirmed that the bearings which were used in those bogies, were not the bearings manufactured and/or supplied by FAG. 20. 19. It is further alleged that on such complaint being received from the purchaser of those bogies from the plaintiff, inspection was held by FAG which also confirmed that the bearings which were used in those bogies, were not the bearings manufactured and/or supplied by FAG. 20. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that supply and/or use of those spurious and/or duplicate bearings in the ultimate product, by the defendant no.2/appellant was intimated to the said defendant and in course of joint inspection held in the workshop, the representatives of the defendant no.2 participated and confirmed about the use of duplicate bearings in the ultimate product supplied by the defendant no.2 to the plaintiff. 21. It was also alleged that though the defendant no.2/appellant was intimated about the use of those defective and/or duplicate bearings in the ultimate product and also about the confirmation regarding use of such duplicate bearings in the ultimate product to the defendant no.2/appellant, the defendant no.2/appellant never categorically denied either participation of its representatives in the joint inspection or the confirmation made by them as mentioned above. 22. Even in this appeal nothing has been produced by the defendant no.2/appellant to show that it purchased genuine/original bearings manufactured and/or supplied by FAG and used these original bearings in its products. Such disclosure, in our view, was necessary for effectively controverting the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant no.2/appellant did not use the original bearings manufactured/supplied by FAG, in its products assembled by it. 23. When in this context, ad interim order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge and/or the same was extended by subsequent order passed by the learned Trial Judge, we feel that such an ad interim order of injunction should not be disturbed by us at this stage as we are of the view that the plaintiff has been able to make out a strong prima facie case for going to trial. 24. The balance of convenience and inconvenience if considered, that will also, in our view, go in favour of the plaintiff for grant of ad interim order of injunction. 25. In these set of facts, we dispose of both the appeals without interfering with the impugned order passed therein. 26. 24. The balance of convenience and inconvenience if considered, that will also, in our view, go in favour of the plaintiff for grant of ad interim order of injunction. 25. In these set of facts, we dispose of both the appeals without interfering with the impugned order passed therein. 26. We however, direct the defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction within two weeks from date, reply if any, be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 27. The learned Trial Judge is requested to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction by the end of January, 2017. 28. It is however, made it clear that the findings and/or observations which are made by this Court hereinabove while disposing of these appeals are all prima facie and/or tentative findings arrived at by this Court only for the purpose of disposal of these appeals arising out of ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge and as such, the learned Trial Judge is absolutely free to decide the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction on its own merit after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 29. Both these appeals and the application are thus, disposed of. 30. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.