( 1 ) HAVING consistently failed to obtain an order of injunction against encashment of duly executed Bank Guarantee from the Court of Civil Judge, senior Division, Jamnagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1988, from the learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat in Appeal From Order No. 186 of 1992 as back as 3rd of April, 1992 and also from the Supreme Court of India, in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal being No. 6356 of 1992 as back as 13/05/1992, the stubborn recalcitrant M/s. Vijaysinh Amarsinh and company has by filing second suit on the same cause of action and more or less for same reliefs in the same Court (different Judge) has succeeded in getting an order of injunction against the encashment of the Bank Guarantee. The Civil judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar (V. N. Shah) has by the impugned order dated 7/08/1992 not only rendered meaningless binding directives of the superior courts, i. e. , the High Court of Gujarat and the Supreme Court of India, but has wilfully and deliberately helped recalcitrant litigant in not obeying the orders of the Apex Court of the State and the Apex Court of the Country. It is this order of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, which has given rise to these two appeals From Orders, one by Hindustan Zinc Limited, in whose favour, the Bank guarantee was executed and another by Vijaya Bank, who was to encash the bank Guarantee by making over payment to Hindustan Zinc Limited.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate questions of larger importance, which arise in appeals From Orders, relevant facts are stated hereunder : (I) M/s. Vijaysinh Amarsinh and Company (Plaintiff contractor) entered into a contract with M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited (Appellant in Appeal From Order who has not been impleaded as party in the suit) for construction of besunda Dam situated in Udaipur District of rajasthan State after inviting tenders from general public. The tender of plaintiff was lowest and was accepted. (II) According to the plaintiff, the contract was in two parts and the work was to be completed in two stages. The work of the first stage was substantial while the work for the second stage was nominal for only rs. 30 lakhs. It was his case that he completed the first stage of the contract for Hindustan Zinc Limited, but despite his readiness and willingness to do the work for the second stage, it was not given to him. There was option in Hindustan Zinc Limited to assign the work of the second stage to the contractor by 31/12/1988, but by notice dated 8/08/1988, the plaintiff contractor withdrew from the contract. (Ill) According to the plaintiff, contract of the second stage was not assigned to the plaintiff, an agreement for that part of the contract was without any consideration and, therefore, he filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, both Hindustan Zinc limited and Vijaya Bank from encashing and/ or invoking the Bank guarantee given by the bank in favour of Hindustan Zinc Limited. Along with the suit he filed an application for injunction restraining hindustan Zinc Limited from invoking the Bank Guarantee during the pendency of the suit. (IV) In such Civil Suit being No. 104 of 1988, ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted by the trial Court, which came to be vacated as back as 12/03/1992 (after four years ). (V) It was the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited that the contractor committed breach of the contract and without even completing the work of the first stage, he withdrew from the contract, so as not to permit the company to exercise the option at the second stage. It was the case of the company that the contract provided for exclusive jurisdiction of udaipur Court in the State of Rajasthan. Still, however, the suit was filed in Jamnagar Court and even notice which was issued by the contractor on 8/08/1988 was received by the company after the contractor obtained ex-parte injunction from the Civil Court on 1 2/08/1988. Despit