( 1 ) RULE. Respective Advocates waive service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today. The petitioner of both these Special Civil applications is defendant No. 1, against whom the respondent, Messrs. Jyoti Limited, filed a suit, being regular Civil Suit No. 1526 of 2001. The said suit is filed for a declaration and injunction. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in the said suit is that the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Pumps, Motors, generators, etc. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 (the present petitioner herein) placed an order with the plaintiff, vide Purchase Order / Contract Agreement dated 9. 1. 1998, for supply, erection and commissioning for Electro-mechanical equipments, the description of which is given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff had furnished bank guarantee to the tune of rs. 33,80,000/- on 23rd April, 1998, which was valid upto 20th December, 1999 and which was extended from time to time, and, lastly, it was valid upto 20. 12. 2001. As per the averments in the plaint, defendant No. 1 was not releasing the outstanding amount as per the terms of the purchase Order and the amount of Rs. 68. 74 lacs is due and payable by defendant No. 1. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is intentionally trying to encash the performance bank guarantee issued by defendant no. 2-bank on behalf of the plaintiff. On the above and such other averments, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. In the plaint, the following prayers have been made by the plaintiff :-". . . . . . . . . 15. The plaintiff therefore prays for the following relief :- (a) Permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1, its Agents, servants and Officers from demanding and / or recovery of any amount from defendant No. 2 central Bank of India, Vadodara may be granted. (b) Permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2, its Agents, servants and Officers from encashing and / or making any payment whatsoever under the said bank Guarantee No. 24/10 dated 23/4/1998 which was extended from time to time and it is now valid upto 20/12/2001 to the defendant no. 1 or any other party may be granted. . . . . . . . . . . "both the prayers in the plaint are in connection with permanent injunction. By asking for a decree for permanent injunction, it is prayed that defendant No. 1 may be restrained from demanding / recovering any amount from defendant No. 2, Central Bank of India. A further injunction was prayed for to the effect that defendant no. 2 may be restrained from encashing / making any payment towards the said bank guarantee No. 24/10 dated 23. 4. 1998, the time limit of which was extended upto 20. 12. 2001. It is required to be noted that the plaint was presented on 19th December, 2001 and at that time, the bank guarantee was in existence upto 20th December, 2001. The trial Judge, on that very day, granted ex parte injunction, restraining defendant No. 2-Bank from releasing / making any payment of the aforesaid performance bank guarantee till the returnable date, i. e. 27. 12. 2001. Surprisingly, the learned Judge has not even placed any condition, asking the plaintiff to extend the period of bank guarantee at least till the next date. However, Mr. Naik, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, states that his client, i. e. the plaintiff, had informed the bank to extend the time limit of the bank guarantee and that, accordingly, the bank guarantee was extended upto 20th July, 2002. The trial court, thereafter, after hearing both the sides, allowed Exhibit 5 Application and ad interim relief granted earlier, restraining the bank from encashing the bank guarantee, was confirmed by the trial court during the pendency of the suit. It is required to be noted that the trial court allowed Exhibit 5 Application by its ord