JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants herein, it transpires that late Shri Inder Singh was owner of the properties, as has been disclosed in Schedule A and B of O.S. No. 385 of 2016. 2. As pleaded, Shri Inder Singh executed an unregistered Will dated 30th March, 1993, whereby, he bequeathed the property of Schedule A to his son Dr. Pramjeet Singh (defendant no.1) and property of Schedule B was bequeathed to his wife Smt. Amrit Kaur. 3. Although, it is not disputed that Smt. Amrit Kaur alienated such property by way of making her testament to her son Mr. Pratap Singh (defendant no.2) and from him, the property undergone into several transactions of sale in the hands of defendant nos.3, 4 and 5 but instantly, such controversy is not here. 4. Shri Inder Singh passed away on 21.10.1996 and after his death, there was mutation in concerned municipal record pertaining to the property of Schedule A. 5. Dr. Pramjeet Singh having mutated his name in such property executed a registered gift deed on 20.07.2011 to his wife Smt. Harvinder Kaur (defendant no.6), who in turn, executed a registered sale deed on 18.07.2016 in favour of the appellants herein. 6. Appellants started to make necessary changes and renovation in such property but the plaintiff Sardar Gurdeep Singh (real brother of Dr. Pramjeet Singh and Mr. Pratap Singh) resident of Indore, M.P., came to Dehradun and noticed all the developments. So, he instituted an O.S. No.385 of 2016 seeking injunction against all these persons, as adverted in the array of party. 7. Learned Trial Judge, without rendering any opportunity of hearing and even before issuing of notices to the defendants, has restrained the appellants (in that Suit, defendant nos.7 and 8) not to make any changes in the property as well as not to create any third party interest. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are the resident of America, so it will not be convenient to make quick service upon them and meanwhile, they are going to suffer a lot, if they are deprived in enjoying the fruits of sale deed for using such property, as per their needs. 9. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are the resident of America, so it will not be convenient to make quick service upon them and meanwhile, they are going to suffer a lot, if they are deprived in enjoying the fruits of sale deed for using such property, as per their needs. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants does agree that no third party interest will be created on the property but at the same time, the appellants may be permitted to carry out necessary changes according to their needs till injunction application is finally heard because in any case, value of such property is not going to be diminished by such changes, rather it will augment. 10. I do agree with the said contention of learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal is admitted for hearing. Issue notices to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 7. Steps be taken within a week. List soon after service. 11. Meanwhile, impugned order dated 22.07.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), shall be kept in abeyance subject to sustainability of part that the appellants herein shall not create any third party interest on the property, in question. 12. Interim relief application (CLMA 7953 of 2016) stands disposed of.