( 1 ) TWO appeals are filed by the same appellant against a common order passed by the trial Court in two suits instituted by the appellant. Both appeals are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) IN Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 1987, respondents 1 to 3 are Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and its functionaries, while Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior is arrayed as respondent No. 4, because they figured as defendants in Civil Suit No. 39-A of 1982. In other appeal, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1987 which related to Civil Suit No. 35-A of 1987, the defendants/respondents are two-some, namely, the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the Commissioner of the said Corporation. However, in both cases, the lis bears the same complexion inasmuch as by the common order, the trial Court has finally disposed of separate applications made in that two civil suits, one set for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, C. P. C. and the other set being applications under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. for amending the plaint as also the applications for temporary injunction. The plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved because both sets of his application have been rejected. The further fact also to be noted at this stage is that the plaintiff/appellant had obtained from the trial Court an order of ad interim temporary injunction on 28-5-1982 in the Civil Suit No. 39-A of 1982, instituted on 26-5-1982. After the injunction was finally vacated on 10-7-1985, on an appeal being taken to this Court, the life of the temporary injunction was revived by this Court on 12-7-1985 and it is still continuing despite the fact that in between the litigation suffered the vicissitude of a remand and consequent rehearing of the matter by the trial Court, finally resulting in the impugned order now challenged in these two appeals.

( 3 ) A word or two may also be said even at the outset about the scope of the amendment prayed before getting lost into the labyrinth of rival contentions of law and fact of kaleidoscopic complexion. In the two suits, as originally framed, relief in each case was based by enforcing contractual right for five years for displaying advertisement boards on the electric poles within the jurisdiction of the Gwalior Municipal Corporation and the contractual obligation of the Municipal Corporation was sought to be enforced up to 19-2-1987. By the amendment, the end period is sought to be changed and extended up to 29-11-1990.

( 4 ) TO complete the bird's eye view of the factual landscape of the source, origin, purpose and distinctive features of the litigation, few more words may also be added. To do so, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the crucial contract in question which is dated 1-3-1982 and is concluded between the plaintiff/appellant and the Gwalior Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, under his seal and signature : [matter in Hindi omitted - Ed]

( 5 ) UNFORTUNATELY, there is another bone of contention having a pervasive bearing on the rights of parties manifested in the circular letter dated 11-1-1982, addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, Local Government Department, to all Commissioners of Municipal Corporations of the State, the text of which deserves to be quoted in extenso : ( 6 ) OBVIOUSLY, the first question to be decided is of validity of the order of the trial Court refusing to continue the temporary injunction granted to the plaintiff/appellant for displaying the advertisement boards in enforcement of the right envisaged under the contract aforequoted. For doing so, obviously again, first question to be decided is if the plaintiff/appellant has a prima facie case to go to trial because the trial Court held that he has no such case. True it is, the court below has further held that the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff and that he shall not suffer irreparable injury if