Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

These two appeals were heard together as those were preferred against two parts of the selfsame order passed by the learned Single Judge thereby modifying the ex parte interim order of injunction granted earlier.

A.P.O. No.190 of 2010 is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for recovery of money and is directed against order dated 29th March, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge by which the said learned Judge modified the earlier order dated 5th March, 2010 to this extent that the defendant was restrained from drawing any amount from its bank account without leaving apart a sum of Rs.74,40,962/- with further stipulation that in the event the amount available in the accounts is insufficient, the original order of injunction passed in terms of prayer (b) of the application should continue till six weeks. It may not be out of place to mention here that by the initial order dated 5th March, 2010 the learned Single Judge passed an ad interim order restraining the defendant from creating any third party’s interest over and in respect of the plant and machineries supplied by the plaintiff in terms of contract dated 10th November, 2006 and 21st November, 2006 and also restraining the defendant from withdrawing any money from the bank account mentioned in paragraph 42 of the application without leaving a balance of Rs.1.5 Crore.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has come up with the other appeal being APO 309 of 2010 against the selfsame order dated March 29, 2010 by which the learned Single Judge varied the interim order dated 5th March, 2010 in favour of the defendant. In other words, the grievance of the plaintiff in his appeal is that the learned Trial Judge should have refused to vary the interim order dated March 5, 2010 on the prayer of the defendant.

The facts giving rise to filing of these two appeals may be summed up thus:

The plaintiff filed a suit being CS No.34 of 2010 in the Original Side of this Court thereby claiming a sum of Rs.1,68,43,662/- with interim interest and also interest on judgment @18% per annum. The case made out by the plaintiff was that according to the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff supplied huge numbers of equipment, plant and machinery to the defendant to enable the defendant to set up a re-Rolling Mill and it was agreed that the price of such machines would be Rs.8,89,92,549/- including the applicable tax and duties. The defendant had made part payment of Rs.8,15,51,587/-being 90% of the said total value of the equipments but had failed and neglected to pay the balance sum of Rs.74,40,962/- being the 10% of the contract-price. The further case of the plaintiff was that the defendant wrongfully appropriated a bank-guarantee of Rs.75,00,000/- dated 12th January, 2009 although the conditions for invoking the bank-guarantee did not arise. The plaintiff also claimed interest and the total amount claimed in the suit was Rs.1,68,43,662/-.

On the basis of selfsame allegations made in the plaint, the plaintiff came up with an application thereby claiming the following relief;

“a) A fit and proper person be appointed as Receiver to take possession of the machines mentioned in Annexure “N” lying at the factory of the respondent situate at Vill-Kuchiddih, Kandrachowka Road, P.S. – Chandil, District- Saraikela, Kharsawan, Jharkand-832404 and to remain in possession of the said machines till disposal of the suit;

b) An order of injunction be passed restraining the respondent from creating any third party interest over and in respect of the said plant and machineries supplied by your petitioner in terms of the contract dated 10th November, 2006 and 21st November, 2006, particulars whereof are mentioned in Annexure “N” herein above;

c) An order of injunction be passed restraining the respondent from withdrawing any money from the said bank accounts mentioned in paragraph 42 without leaving the balance of Rs. 1,68,43,662.00 in such accounts;

d) Ad-interim o