JUDGMENT C. L. SONI, J. 1. The appeal is filed by original plaintiffs under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("the Code") against the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by learned 13th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.323 of 2015 whereby the application Exh.5 is rejected. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs have filed above suit seeking declaration that in respect of one-half undivided share in the suit land, the defendants have no right or authority to sell, mortgage, gift or in any manner deal with it or to illegally enter on it for causing any obstruction, interference in rights of the plaintiffs or to create any third party rights therein or to take any Government or semi-government permission for development thereon and with further declaration that the sale agreements dated 31.03.2008 or 03.07.2008 registered in the office of the sub-registrar and the registered sale deed dated 21.10.2008 in connection therewith are false, illegal, forged, fabricated without consideration, ineffective, null and void and on the basis of such sale agreement and the sale deed, the defendant Nos.6 to 9 have not acquired any right or title in the suit land and by such sale agreement and sale deed, the rights and title of the plaintiffs have not vanished and such sale agreement and sale deed are not acceptable to the plaintiffs and not binding to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also asked for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, gifting or in any manner dealing with the suit land as well as from creating any obstruction, interference in the suit land and from creating any third party interest in the suit land or from asking permission from the Government or the semi-government in connection with the suit land and from developing or doing any activity on the basis of permission on the suit land. 4. In above suit, the plaintiffs filed application below Exh.5 seeking interim injunction of the same nature as prayed for permanent injunction. As stated above, learned Judge by impugned order has rejected the application Exh.5. 5. 4. In above suit, the plaintiffs filed application below Exh.5 seeking interim injunction of the same nature as prayed for permanent injunction. As stated above, learned Judge by impugned order has rejected the application Exh.5. 5. The case of the plaintiffs in their suit is that their deceased father Dahyabhai and the defendant No.1 - Ishwarbhai were real brothers and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the family members of the defendant No.1, that though mother of the plaintiffs died on 12.11.2005, however, the defendant No.10 by misusing her power of attorney dated 27.01.2004 and in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 5 executed the sale deed in respect of one-half share of the plaintiffs in the suit land in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9. It is their case that the suit land is ancestral property, wherein, their one-half ownership and possessory rights are involved. It is their further case that on the say of the defendant No.1, power of attorney was given to defendant No.10 on 27.01.2004 only for the purpose of removal of reservation from the suit land and on the basis of such power of attorney, even the defendant No.10 started taking action for removal of the reservation from the suit land but such power of attorney was misused to sell the suit land in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9 and they came to know about the execution of the sale deed for entire suit land only when they got the notice for revenue entry in respect of suit land. On such premise and with other averments alleging creation of bogus, false, illegal and without consideration the sale deed, the suit is filed. Learned Judge has observed in the impugned order that the power of attorney was executed in the year 2004 and the plaintiffs have neither cancelled nor challenged the power of attorney. Learned Judge has also observed that after a long period of 10 years, the plaintiffs cannot now say that no authority was given to power of attorney - defendant No.10 to sell the suit land. Thus, considering the conduct on the part of the plaintiffs and having considered that the defendant Nos.6 to 9 have invested their amount in purchasing the suit land and in developing the suit land, learned Judge refused to grant equitable relief to the plaintiffs. 6. Thus, considering the conduct on the part of the plaintiffs and having considered that the defendant Nos.6 to 9 have invested their amount in purchasing the suit land and in developing the suit land, learned Judge refused to grant equitable relief to the plaintiffs. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to one-half share in the suit land and their one-half share was sold in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9 without any authority given by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.10. Mr.Purohit submitted that the Court below has failed to consider that the power of attorney used for executing sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9 was given only for the limited purpose for taking necessary procedure to remove reservation from the suit land and, therefore, the sale deed executed with power of attorney was invalid in the eye of law. Mr.Purohit submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs named Pushpaben died in the year 2005 before execution of the sale deed and since with her passing away, the power of attorney given by her also died, the sale deed executed with the power of attorney of the dead person will not confer any title to the defendant Nos.6 to 9. Mr.Purohit submitted that though sale deed was executed in the year 2008, the defendant Nos.6 to 9 did not get the revenue entry mutated in their favour on the basis of the sale deed till 2013 as they knew that the sale deed was invalidly executed. Mr.Purohit submitted that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the plaintiffs have not received amount of consideration and there is no proof given by the defendant Nos.6 to 9 for payment of consideration shown to have been made in cash in the sale deed. Mr.Purohit submitted that the execution of the sale deed without consideration was illegal and invalid. Mr.Purohit submitted that on all the above aspects, though the plaintiffs made out prima facie case and though the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs, learned Judge refused to grant injunction to the plaintiffs and, therefore, interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Order XLIII of the Code. 7. Mr.Purohit submitted that on all the above aspects, though the plaintiffs made out prima facie case and though the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs, learned Judge refused to grant injunction to the plaintiffs and, therefore, interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Order XLIII of the Code. 7. Learned Senior advocate Mr.R.R. Marshall appearing with learned advocate Mr.A.B. Musnhi for the respondents submitted that the father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs could not dispute that they have executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.10 and on the basis of such power of attorney, the defendant No.10 validly executed sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9. Mr.Marshall submitted that right from the day of execution of the power of attorney in 2004 till the sale deed was executed in the year 2008 in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9 and even, thereafter, till the suit was filed in the year 2013, the plaintiffs neither cancelled nor challenged power of attorney. Mr.Marshall submitted that as rightly found by learned Judge and as could be seen from the contents of the power of attorney, the power of attorney was not given for limited purpose as sought to be contended by learned advocate Mr.Purohit but it was given for all purposes including for sale of the suit land. Mr.Marshall submitted that death of the mother of the plaintiffs prior to execution of the sale deed could not make the execution of the sale deed illegal as the power given to defendant No.10 by the mother of the plaintiffs survived with the powers given by other plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.10. Mr.Marshall submitted that learned Judge on prima facie consideration of the power of attorney given by the plaintiffs has found that the power of attorney given by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.10 conferred absolute right to the defendant No.10 to sell, transfer and to do all acts required in connection with the suit land. Mr.Marshall submitted that when during a long period of 10 years, the plaintiffs never bothered to know what development has taken place for the suit land and when there is no challenge to the power of attorney and the suit appears to have been filed for ulterior consideration, the plaintiff could not be made entitled to grant of equitable relief. Mr.Marshall submitted that when during a long period of 10 years, the plaintiffs never bothered to know what development has taken place for the suit land and when there is no challenge to the power of attorney and the suit appears to have been filed for ulterior consideration, the plaintiff could not be made entitled to grant of equitable relief. Mr.Marshall submitted that after the defendant No.6 to 9 have purchased the suit land, they have taken all steps for development of the suit land including of getting non-agricultural permission for the suit land. Mr.Marshall drew the attention of the Court to the documents for granting NA permission for the suit land and other documents to submit that during long time, the defendant Nos.6 to 9 have been exclusively dealing with the suit land and subsequently in 2013, the plaintiffs came with the suit with dishonest intention. 8. As regards the contention that the sale deed is without consideration, Mr.Marshall submitted that when the execution of the sale deed could not be doubted, the payment of consideration mentioned in the sale deed has to be believed at this stage. Mr.Marshall submitted that the defendant No.1 is the uncle of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the cousins of the plaintiffs and when they have not raised any objection against the sale deed, mere assertion of the plaintiffs that the sale deed was without consideration and that the sale deed was invalid as no power of attorney was given by the plaintiffs would not make the plaintiffs entitle to grant of equitable relief. Mr.Marshall submitted that learned Judge on prima facie assessment of material on record and on the conduct of the plaintiffs when has found that the plaintiffs have failed to make out prima facie case for grant of equitable relief, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order under Order XLIII of the Code. 9. Having heard learned advocates, it prima facie appears to the Court that the plaintiffs do not challenge the execution of power of attorney by them in favour of the defendant No.10 for the suit land. But their stand is that the power of attorney was given to the defendant No.10 for limited purpose to undertake procedure for removal of the reservation from the suit land. But their stand is that the power of attorney was given to the defendant No.10 for limited purpose to undertake procedure for removal of the reservation from the suit land. However, learned Judge on prima facie assessment of the documents of power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs has found that the power of attorney given by the plaintiffs is to sell, transfer and to do all acts required in that direction for the suit land. 10. Learned Judge has also prima facie found that the plaintiffs have never cancelled or challenged the power of attorney based on which the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9. The Court does not find that the prima facie view expressed by learned Judge on execution of the power of attorney is by taking perverse approach to the pleading and material on record for deciding to grant equitable relief. 11. Learned Judge has observed on the conduct of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have though not cancelled and challenged the power of attorney, they have come with the suit after long time to challenge the sale deed. 12. The Court finds that sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant Nos.6 to 9 in the year 2008 and the suit was filed in the year 2013. Though it is the case of the plaintiffs that they came to know about the sale deed when they were served with the notice under Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code for making revenue entry on the basis of the sale deed, however, it could not be ignored that after execution of sale deed, 5 years passed before filing the suit and in the meantime, the defendant Nos.6 to 9 have taken steps towards development of the suit land. It is required to note that the plaintiffs claim one-half share in the suit land. But, the defendant Nos.1 to 5, who are stated to be the co-owners of the suit land, have no grievance against the sale deed. The power of attorney was jointly executed by the father and the mother of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs as well as by the defendant Nos.1 to 5. However, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have not made any grievance either against power of attorney or against the sale deed. The power of attorney was jointly executed by the father and the mother of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs as well as by the defendant Nos.1 to 5. However, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have not made any grievance either against power of attorney or against the sale deed. The plaintiffs have alleged collusion between the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.6 to 9 but such could not be the consideration at this stage while deciding the question as regards the grant of equitable relief pending the suit. Similarly, the aspect about the non-payment of consideration alleged by the plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.6 to 9 will be a matter of evidence. 13. The appeal under Order XLIII of the Code is decided on principles and not on reassessment of the material on record of the suit. Therefore, unless it is shown that the approach taken by learned Judge while deciding injunction application is perverse or that learned Judge has misdirected himself in facts and law, the interference in the discretionary order is not to be made while exercising powers under Order XLIII of the Code. The plaintiffs have failed to show that approach of the learned Judge is either perverse or that the learned Judge has misdirected himself while deciding the injunction application. 14. In the case of Wander Ltd. and Another Versus Antox India P. Ltd. reported in, (1990) Supp1 SCC 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph No.14 as under: "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in : Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osention & Co. v. Johnston '...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'." The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle." 15. In view of above, when the Court finds that the view taken by learned Judge was possible on prima facie assessment of the material on record, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 16. Since, the appeal is dismissed, civil application shall not survive. Hence, it is disposed of accordingly.