Paresh Upadhyay, J.

These two Appeals arise from the common Order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara dated 04.05.2015 below application Exh.132 in Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009 and application Exh. 116 in Special Civil Suit No. 370 of 2010.

2. Appeal from Order No.160 of 2015 is filed by the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2010 and Appeal from Order No.109 of 2016 is filed by the plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009.

3. The proceedings, which led to filing of these appeals, briefly stated are as under.

3.1 Tensile Steel Ltd. instituted Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009 against Apoorva Dineshbhai Patel and another, principally challenging the power of attorney dated 20.04.2009 and an agreement to sell dated 18.06.2009, executed in favour of Shreem Construction Pvt Ltd., pursuant to the said power of attorney. In the said suit, the Trial Court had initially granted injunction (on application Exh.5) in favour of the said plaintiff vide order dated 24.05.2010.

3.2 Shreem Construction Pvt. Ltd. filed Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2010, principally praying for specific performance of the above referred agreement to sell dated 18.06.2009 in its favour. In the said suit, injunction application Exh.5 was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2010.

3.3 The suit land in both the proceedings is the same.

3.4 The above two orders, i.e. grant of injunction by the Trial Court in favour of Tensile vide order dated 24.05.2010 and refusal of injunction by the Trial Court in favour of Shreem vide order dated 18.11.2010, were the subject matters of different Appeals from those Orders before this Court, being Appeal from Order No.369 of 2010, Appeal from Order Nos.124 & 125 of 2011. Those three Appeals were disposed of by this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.G. Shah) on 01.10.2014, principally holding that, after those two orders i.e. orders dated 24.05.2010 and 18.11.2010, certain developments took place and there are many documents which need to be taken into consideration. Had the said exercise been undertaken by this Court, it might have prejudiced any party, qua the right of appeal before this Court. In the view of this Court, therefore, it was appropriate not to undertake that exercise here, at that time. In this background, this Court had, vide order dated 01.10.2014, directed the parties to move the Trial Court again and the Trial Court was also directed to decide the applications within a period of two months.

3.5 Pursuant to the above order of this Court dated 01.10.2014, the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2010 (Shreem Construction Pvt. Ltd.) filed two applications before the Trial Court.

(i) Application Exh.116 was given in Special Civil Suit No.370 of 2010, for modification of the earlier order dated 18.11.2010, and for grant of injunction (which was earlier refused).

(ii) Application Exh.132 was given in Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009. It was for vacating injunction which was earlier granted in favour of Tensile vide order dated 24.05.2010.

3.6 The above two applications are decided by the Trial Court by the impugned common order dated 04.05.2015.

3.6.1 The Trial Court, on the basis of the material before it, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009 (Tensile) could not have been granted injunction in its favour for various reasons, including suppression of material facts. The Trial Court has therefore vacated the injunction which it had granted on 24.05.2010 in favour of Tensile. This is challenged by (Tensile) the plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009 before this Court in Appeal from Order No.109 of 2016, praying for restoration of the injunction which was operating in its favour.

3.6.2 The Trial Court, while holding that no injunction could be granted/continued in favour of the plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.1294 of 2009, refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.370 o