Mr. P.K. Lohra, J.

1. Appellant has preferred these two separate appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 CPC to assail order dated 17th of March 2017, passed by Addl. District Judge No.4, Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court'), rejecting its applications, for temporary injunction in two suits for perpetual and mandatory injunction, by a common order.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of case are that appellant plaintiff, while complaining infringement of its intellectual property rights (IPR), emanated from Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, 'Act of 1999') and Copyright Act, 1957 (for short, 'Act of 1957'), instituted civil suits against both the respondents for perpetual and mandatory injunction, inter-alia, on the ground that it is a manufacturer of plaster of paris and got registration of the said product under the Act of 1999 and Act of 1957 with label "Hi-Tech". It is further averred in the plaints that appellant-plaintiff is using the said label on carry-bags for outer packaging of goods displaying in English "Hi-Tech" beneath which word Gypsum is written and in the bottom there is pictorial display of a building in round circle and just on the bottom to this "Hi-Tech" Gypsum is written in green colour background. Appellant further asserted in the plaints that being owner and proprietor of artistic features imbibed in the said trademark, it holds copyright therein under Registration No. A-110645/2014 dated 19th of May 2014. Laying emphasis that the features involved in the said trademark label are original in character, the appellant-plaintiff has further asserted in the plaints that it is exclusive owner of the same within the meaning of Act of 1957. Boosting its reputation in the market, appellant-plaintiff has pleaded in both the plaints that its product under the aforesaid trademark/label has acquired acclaimed goodwill and enviable reputation in the market so as to built up a handsome and valuable trade thereunder.

3. Castigating the respondent-defendants for imitating its trademark/label on their goods, plaster of paris and by deceptively using similar labels on their goods marked "Hi-Techi" and "I-Tek", both of them have violated the Act of 1999 and also the Act of 1957. Harping on the similarity in the labels of respondents, it is pleaded in the plaints that both of them have slavishly copied the label trademark of appellant-plaintiff by using similar label, distinctive combination - light green and orange combination of colour alongwith same style of display of building with prominent label mark on their own. Taking serious exception to the acts and omissions of the respondent-defendants, appellant has also pleaded in the plaints that their action is dishonest, malafide and fraudulent. It is also stated that the appellant plaintiff is having no control over the quality of goods of respondent-defendants and therefore due to overall resemblance of label with colour combination, lay out and arrangement of features on the carry-bags of respondents, there is every likelihood of misconception and deception at the cost of appellant's loss of goodwill and reputation in the market.

With all these positive assertions, appellant has prayed for grant of perpetual injunction in mandatory form against the respondent-defendants in both the suits.

4. The suits filed by the appellant-plaintiff were also accompanying applications for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. While reiterating all the allegations made in the plaints, appellant prayed for temporary injunction against both the respondent-defendants not to use resembling label trademarks for their products pending decisions of the suits. In the application for temporary injunction, appellant pleaded requisite facts for proving prima facie case in its favour and also made endeavour to establish existence of two other necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, viz., balance of convenience and irreparabl