Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appeal was against an order dated 10.12.2020, which dismissed applications filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by both the appellant and respondent no. 1 (!) (!) .

2. The applications sought the vacation of an earlier order dated 25.02.2013, which had been confirmed by an order dated 13.08.2015 (!) .

3. The court noted that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is permissible only if the applicant demonstrates a change in circumstances or undue hardship since the original order (!) (!) .

4. The court observed that the appellant failed to establish any change in circumstances or undue hardship that would warrant modification or vacation of the injunction (!) .

5. It was also noted that no appeal had been filed against the original orders, and the application did not meet the legal requirements stipulated for such modifications (!) (!) .

6. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the orders of injunction should remain in effect and that the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was rightly rejected (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasized the importance of expediting the trial proceedings, directing the trial court to conclude the case by a specified date (!) .

8. The judgment clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits of the case but was limited to the procedural and legal considerations regarding the injunction and its modification (!) .

9. The order was to be uploaded on the court's website and communicated to the involved parties (!) .

These points encapsulate the court's reasoning and decision regarding the application for modification of an injunction under the specified procedural rules.