JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. Considering the facts and circumstances and when other side is appearing through caveat, matter has been taken up for final disposal at such admission stage itself. Hence, RULE. Ld. Advocate Mr. Chirag B. Patel waives service of rule for the respondent. 2. Heard both the sides at length and perused the record. 3. It seems that this is luxury litigation for the petitioner, who is plaintiff before the Civil Court at Baroda in Regular Civil Suit No. 1387/2008 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents - defendants with respect to plot nos. 639 and 650 contending that the defendants have sold both the plot nos. 639 and 650 after accepting sale consideration and handed over possession to the plaintiff and, therefore, now the plaintiff has become the owner and thereby he wants to restrain and refrain the defendants from creating any obstacle and from snatching away possession of the plots in question, for which it is contended that the defendants have given threats and causing damage to the property and ownership right of the plaintiff attached to such plots in question. The plaintiff has also prayed for ad-interim injunction by filing an application at exh. 5 in the same suit so as to restrain the defendants to the similar extent of causing obstacles to the plaintiff in enjoying and possessing the plots in question and to prevent the defendants from snatching away possession of the plots forcefully and illegally. 4. Such injunction application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 16/5/2014 and, therefore, after rushing to this Court during vacation when ultimately this Court has directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Court, the plaintiff has filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 122/2014 before the District Court at Baroda. However, such appeal is also now dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20/8/2015 and hence the plaintiff has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders of both the Courts below i.e. trial Court and first appellate Court. 5. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case, as emerging from the record, is to the effect that the Power of Attorney holder of the defendant no. 1 being defendant no. 2, has executed Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] in favour of the plaintiff to sell both the plot nos. 5. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case, as emerging from the record, is to the effect that the Power of Attorney holder of the defendant no. 1 being defendant no. 2, has executed Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] in favour of the plaintiff to sell both the plot nos. 639 and 650 to the plaintiff against consideration of totalRs.38,51,000/- and though the plaintiff has paid such amount to the defendants, defendants are disturbing possession of plot no. 650 and hence the suit. Detailed description of the property in question is well described in the pleadings and, therefore, in this petition under Article 227 against concurrent findings of two Courts below, the factual details of suit property is not in dispute and material and hence I have not reproduced the details of the same herein. 6. However, the present controversy is only for limited purpose of right and title of the plaintiff so far as plot no. 650 is concerned, because both the Courts below have, while dismissing the application of the plaintiff for plot no. 650, protected his right so far as plot no. 639 is concerned. Even defendants are not claiming or disputing the possession of plot no. 639 by the plaintiff. Therefore, now we are concerned with the rights of the plaintiff so far as plot no. 650 is concerned and, therefore, now I am restricting the factual discussion so far as plot no. 650 only is concerned. 7. The plaintiff's suit is practically based upon two MOUs, first is dated 11/4/2007 and second is dated 30/3/2008, copies of which are produced at Annexure-D by the petitioner. If we peruse both such documents, it specifically transpires and makes it clear that MOU dated 11/4/2007 is certainly signed by the defendant no. 2 as a second party in such MOU, but if we peruse the entire document, it is clear and obvious that such MOU is only for one plot i.e. plot no. 639 and there is no reference whatsoever in any manner to deal with the plot no. 650 and thereby there is no confirmation by the defendants being owners of such plot that either such plot no. 650 is sold or even intended to be sold i.e. agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for consideration. So far as plot no. 639 and there is no reference whatsoever in any manner to deal with the plot no. 650 and thereby there is no confirmation by the defendants being owners of such plot that either such plot no. 650 is sold or even intended to be sold i.e. agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for consideration. So far as plot no. 639 is concerned, the MOU confirms that the plaintiff has agreed to purchase it at the price ofRs.20,39,000/- and the defendant has agreed to sell it at such price and received an amount ofRs.18 lacs for the purpose, which was acknowledged by the defendants in such MOU. So far as possession of the plot is concerned, it is specifically averred in such MOU that the possession of the said plot [no. 639] will be handed over to the party of the first part after receiving full consideration i.e. remaining consideration beingRs.2,39,000/- and that necessary expenditure like transfer fee, documentation charges, etc., shall be borne by the buyer i.e. the plaintiff. The petitioner has filed xerox copy of the original MOU which bears signature of both the parties, so also its typed copy. 8. Whereas another MOU is prior to such MOU i.e. dated 30/3/2007, but the petitioner has not filed its original copy bearing signature of both the parties and it seems that only typed copy signed only by the plaintiff is produced and the plaintiff is relying upon it contending that as per such MOU defendants have agreed to sell both the plots i.e. plot nos. 639 and 650, situated at G.I.D.C. Makarpura, Baroda, at the fixed total price ofRs.38,51,000/- and that out of whichRs.18 lacs was already paid on that day and remainingRs.20,51,000/- is to be paid on or before 10th April. So far as possession is concerned, similar condition is there that the possession of the said plot nos. 639 and 650, GIDC, Makarpura, will be handed over to the party of the first part i.e. plaintiff after receiving full remaining consideration beingRs.20,51,000/-. Therefore, the fact is now very much clear that though initially there was draft MOU for both the plots, when such MOU does not bear the signature of the defendants, such draft has no evidentiary value, but thereafter, when defendant has signed MOU on 11/4/2007, there is reference of only one plot i.e. plot no. Therefore, the fact is now very much clear that though initially there was draft MOU for both the plots, when such MOU does not bear the signature of the defendants, such draft has no evidentiary value, but thereafter, when defendant has signed MOU on 11/4/2007, there is reference of only one plot i.e. plot no. 639 and, therefore, now there is no question of any agreement or transaction of plot no. 650 owned by the plaintiff in absence of any other cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the defendant has also agreed to sell the plot no. 650 and that on receipt of entire amount as pleaded by the plaintiff i.e.Rs.38,51,000/-, the defendant has handed over possession of plot no. 650 also to the plaintiff. 9. The plaintiff is also relying upon his own letters dated 12/4/2007 and 17/4/2007, copies of which are produced at Annexure-E. Both these letters are also having disclosure inasmuch as in the first letter dated 12/4/2007, which is certainly after 11/4/2007 i.e. alleged first MOU, so also the agreed MOU dated 11/4/2007, wherein there is reference of only one plot i.e. shed no. 639 and wherein it is stated that cheque of remaining amount ofRs.2,39,000/-is sent with such letter so as to make total payment ofRs.20,39,000/- and thereby notRs.38,51,000/-. Such letter is received by the defendant with cheque on 14/4/2007 and, therefore, till 14/4/2007 there was no consideration or transaction for plot no. 650. The letter dated 17/4/2007 is very much clear and which confirms that there is no signatures of the defendants so far as sale of both the plots is concerned. Whereas so far as total payment is concerned, again there is no disclosure that the plaintiff is offering the amount ofRs.20,51,000/-, but he is disclosing that he has to pay balance amount ofRs.2,39,000/-. In any case, this is also cited as disclosure, but the reading of entire letter makes it clear that in fact the plaintiff is awaiting the sale agreement duly signed by the defendant no. 2 i.e. Shirish Jagmohan Shah for shed nos. 639 and 650. Therefore, it is clear and obvious that upto 17/4/2007 the plaintiff has never received an MOU duly signed by the defendants agreeing to sell plot no. 650 against the payment ofRs.20,51,000/-. 10. 2 i.e. Shirish Jagmohan Shah for shed nos. 639 and 650. Therefore, it is clear and obvious that upto 17/4/2007 the plaintiff has never received an MOU duly signed by the defendants agreeing to sell plot no. 650 against the payment ofRs.20,51,000/-. 10. It seems that thereafter the plaintiff has tried to get disadvantage of judicial proceedings and initiated litigation claiming that he is in possession of both the plots, though there is no clarity that how and when the possession of any of the plots had been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants. 11. With such factual details and background, the plaintiff has filed a suit as aforesaid, wherein he prayed for local inspection of both the plots to ascertain the actual position. But when the Commissioner appointed by the Court has inspected the suit plots, though it is settled legal position that the possession cannot be decided merely based upon such report by the Commissioner, the fact remains that at the time of local inspection of the suit plots by the Court Commissioner, possession of plot no. 650 was not found with the plaintiff, but it was found within the control of the defendants, since the defendants were in possession of the key of the lock which was found on such plot and even inside the plot, there is no evidence to prove that it was in possession of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was enjoying it. Even some material of the defendants was found in such plot. 12. Therefore, so far as plot no. 650 is concerned, both the Courts below have observed that the plaintiff is trying to take illegal possession of the plot no. 650 under the protection by Court's order and pursuant to such attempt, there are criminal complaints from both the sides since the defendants have tried to utilise the plot no. 650 in accordance with his requirement and restrained the plaintiff to enter into plot no. 650. 13. I have perused the judgment and order dated 16/5/2014 below application exhs. 5, 13 and 23 by the Ld. Principal Civil Judge, Baroda, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1387/2008, so also impugned judgment and order dated 20/8/2015 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 122/2014 by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Baroda. 650. 13. I have perused the judgment and order dated 16/5/2014 below application exhs. 5, 13 and 23 by the Ld. Principal Civil Judge, Baroda, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1387/2008, so also impugned judgment and order dated 20/8/2015 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 122/2014 by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Baroda. Both the Courts below have considered the rival submissions in detail and there is concurrent decisions that though there is counter claim by the defendants for getting possession of plot no. 639, if plaintiff is in possession of such plot, his right of possession is to be safeguarded and, therefore, such application was partly allowed by restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance and hindrance in possession of such plot no. 639 is concerned. However, so far as plot no. 650 is concerned, similar relief was refused. 14. Since this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, what is required at this stage is illegality, irregularity, arbitrariness or perverseness by the Court below in passing the impugned order and if impugned order cannot stand on any such ground, then it would be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence at this stage and to disturb or modify the impugned order but not only because there is possibility of taking different opinion from the set of prima-facie evidence on record. It is more so because said orders are interim and interlocutory orders and both the parties have yet to adduce their evidence to prove their case and such orders can be altered, modified or even reversed by the trial Court once final evidence is produced before it in accordance with law. Therefore, at this stage, when above discussion regarding MOU makes it clear there is no confirmation or agreement to sell plot no. 650 or even when there is no evidence regarding handing over the possession of plot no. 650, I do not see any substance or reason to interfere with concurrent findings of both the Courts. It is sufficient to say that I have gone through the available record and could not find any illegality, irregularity, arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned judgment. 650, I do not see any substance or reason to interfere with concurrent findings of both the Courts. It is sufficient to say that I have gone through the available record and could not find any illegality, irregularity, arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned judgment. Whereas discussing all the available evidence in detail would otherwise prejudice either side so also final determination by the trial Court when parties have yet to adduce their evidence and, therefore, I am avoiding discussion of proceedings between the parties, so also all details which are taken care of by both the Courts below. In other words, I am endorsing the observation and determination of all factual discussion by both the Courts below and, therefore, it does not require to be reproduced herein. 15. The respondents-defendants have resisted this petition by filing affidavit-in-reply in detail with several documents. On perusal of such affidavit-in-reply and documents, it becomes clear that the defendants are also relying upon the report of the Court Commissioner prepared in presence of both the sides, which confirms that the plot no. 650 was in possession of the defendants and even after local inspection, plaintiff has to agree to put a lock on such plot by the defendants only. The defendants have further contended that they have purchased the plots in auction sale during the Court proceedings from the Official Liquidator of the High Court at the total cost ofRs.11.72 crores and, therefore, they have no reason to sell such property at throw away price and that the plaintiff is taking disadvantage of judicial proceedings. The defendants also confirm that they have never entered into an agreement to sell plot no. 650, but it was plaintiff who repeatedly included the issue of second plot i.e. plot no. 650 though the defendants have never agreed to sell the said plot no. 650. The defendants have also issued a notice confirming all such facts to the plaintiff and in fact even cancelled the sale agreement for plot no. 639 by returning the amount ofRs.20,39,000/- by cheque dated 30/12/2008. Therefore, the Court has protected the right over plot no. 639 only and not on plot no. 650. If at all the plaintiff is keen to confirm that he has got possession of plot no. 639 by returning the amount ofRs.20,39,000/- by cheque dated 30/12/2008. Therefore, the Court has protected the right over plot no. 639 only and not on plot no. 650. If at all the plaintiff is keen to confirm that he has got possession of plot no. 650, then though MOU dated 30/3/2007 is not signed by the defendants, the plaintiff should have shown that how he has paid the full consideration and how and when he got the possession from the defendants. In absence of such evidence, I do not see any lacuna in the impugned order. 16. Though factual details are very much clear for refusing the relief as per the impugned orders, both the sides are relying upon several citations. However, considering the facts and circumstances, none of such citations needs to be discussed in detail, observing only that there is substance in the defendants' case, so also citations referred by the defendants, which are as under : [i] M/s. Seemax Construction [P] Ltd. v. State Bank of India reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 197: In view of suppression of material facts-discretionary relief sought under Order 31 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC are denied. [ii] Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu v. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee reported in AIR 1992 Orissa 47 : Plaintiff is not bound to make lis pendents as party, it is only discretion of the Court to add such party. [iii] Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. reported in [1995] 5 SCC 545 : General principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court qua balance of convenience, irreparable injury and prima facie case. [iv] Unjha Formulations Ltd. v. Unjha Pharmacy reported in 1996 [2] GLH 511 : On prima facie case and balance of convenience. [v] Purshottam Vishandas Raheja v. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja reported in [2011] 6 SCC 73 : When reasoned order is passed under settled principles of law refusing interlocutory injunction - there is no reason for Appellate Bench to interfere. [vi] Keshar Bai v. Chhunulal reported in [2014] 11 SCC 438 : No interference - concurrent findings. 17. Whereas the plaintiff is relying upon following decisions. However, considering the present set of facts, circumstances and evidence, none of such decisions would help the plaintiff - petitioner in any manner. [i] Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza reported in [1999] 4 SCC 403. 17. Whereas the plaintiff is relying upon following decisions. However, considering the present set of facts, circumstances and evidence, none of such decisions would help the plaintiff - petitioner in any manner. [i] Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza reported in [1999] 4 SCC 403. [ii] Jivanbhai Jerambhai Patadia v. Bhavanje Vinasjee Thakkar reported in AIR 1995 Gujarat 92. [iii] Lakshmi @ Bhagyalakshmi v. E. Jayaram [D] by Lrs reported in AIR 2013 SC 2939 . [iv] Maharwal Khewaji Trust v. Baldev Dass reported in AIR 2005 SC 104 . [v] Judgment rendered by this Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 12351/2014 dated 3/9/2015. 18. There is wide difference between dispossessing by force and getting back possession if it is not with the plaintiff for any reason whatsoever. 19. The sum and substance of all above decisions are that there must be protection by the Court against threatened action of the defendants to get the possession of the suit property forcefully or illegally, considering the settled legal position that nobody should be dispossessed without following due process of law, to apply such principle, there must be prima facie evidence regarding possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. Whereas, in the present case, as discussed herein above, when possession of plot no. 650 by the plaintiff itself is disputed fact and when prima facie evidence is against the plaintiff so far as transaction of such plot is concerned, none of such judgments would practically help the petitioner to succeed in the present petition. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the petition. Hence it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed.