JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is a plaintiff’s First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. has arisen from judgment and decree, dated 6.12.2016 and 7.12.2016, respectively, passed by Sri Arun Kumar Rai, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gautam Budha Nagar on application 6-C rejecting ad-interim injunction application of plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred to as “appellants”) in Original Suit No. 33 of 2015 (Dr. Ashok and others v. Ram Niwas and others). 2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Promod Jain, Advocate, assisted by Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 3. The appellants instituted Original Suit No. 33 of 2015 against defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as “respondents”) vide plaint dated 12.1.2015. Plaint case set up by appellants is that plot No. S.D./A-1, area 338.25 Sq.mts. situated in Sector 45 NOIDA, Village Sadarpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budha Nagar has a residential building constructed over it, which was raised by appellants and they are owner in possession over the land and construction thereon. Sale-deed in respect of aforesaid land was executed in favour of appellants on 13.10.2011 and since then they are in possession over disputed property. 4. The land of respondents 1 to 8 was acquired by Government. On 16.3.2011 defendants 9 and 10 got a Power of Attorney executed in their favour from defendants 1 to 8. Thereafter registered lease-deed dated 27.9.2011 was executed by NOIDA in favour of respondents 1 to 8, through respondents 9 and 10. The power of attorney holders i.e. respondents 9 and 10, on the basis of lease deed dated 27.9.2011 and Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011, executed sale-deed dated 13.10.2011 of disputed property in favour of appellants and they are in possession over said property since then. At the time of purchase and transfer of possession and permission to raise construction from NOIDA, none of the respondents ever raised any objection. Even no objection has been raised by respondents 1 to 8 at the time of raising construction. 5. In a collusive manner, respondents 1 to 8 filed Original Suit No. 1303 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budha Nagar, challenging Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011 and lease deed dated 27.9.2011. Subsequently, said respondents got the suit dismissed after filing an application and affidavit that Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011 and lease deed dated 27.9.2011 are valid documents. Subsequently, said respondents got the suit dismissed after filing an application and affidavit that Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011 and lease deed dated 27.9.2011 are valid documents. Earlier respondents 1 to 8 have got an agreement dated 8.3.2007 executed and registered in favour of Manju Chauhan and Pawan Kumar. This document was registered at Serial No. 1110 in the office of Sub-Registrar, NOIDA. Respondents 1 to 8 have also filed Original Suit No. 758 of 2013 in which respondents 9 and 10 are defendants and have filed their written statement stating that Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011 and lease-deed dated 27.9.2011 are valid documents and sale-deed dated 13.10.2011 was executed with the consent of respondents 1 to 8. Now, with a dishonest intention, respondents 1 to 8 are claiming that Power of Attorney and sale-deed as well as construction and possession over property in dispute of appellants are illegal. They have also filed an application in NOIDA claiming that transfer of plot in dispute is illegal. It appears, by concealment of correct facts, respondents 1 to 8 are attempting to usurp disputed land illegally. They have also concealed factum of civil suits pending and decided. Respondents 1 to 8 are repeatedly declaring that Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011 is illegal and lease-deed dated 27.3.2011 is void though this issue had already been settled holding the said documents valid, in Original Suit No. 1303 of 2011. NOIDA, a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976) has no authority to declare any document valid or invalid. In this regard, suit No. 758 of 2014 of respondents 1 to 8 is pending and earlier Original Suit No. 1303 of 2011 has already been decided. NOIDA has no authority either to cancel permission granted by it or to renew it. Respondents also have no right to move any application before NOIDA with regard to correctness of aforesaid transactions. Respondents 1 to 8 have also filed a First Information Report in which police has filed final report. In similar manner, plot No. A-2, Sector 45, NOIDA was also sold by respondents 1 to 8 but they have not challenged the said transaction. Respondents 1 to 8 have also filed a First Information Report in which police has filed final report. In similar manner, plot No. A-2, Sector 45, NOIDA was also sold by respondents 1 to 8 but they have not challenged the said transaction. It is in this backdrop, the appellants sought relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering in peaceful possession and title of appellants and not to take any steps for demolition of construction raised thereon and also from evicting appellants from property in dispute without following procedure prescribed in law. 6. Subsequently, it appears that NOIDA cancelled lease-deed dated 27.9.2011 whereafter suit was amended and a declaration was sought that order dated 25.6.2015 passed by NOIDA is void. A further declaration has been sought with regard to title of appellants on property in dispute that they are valid lease holder and owner and in possession over property in dispute. 7. Appellants also filed application seeking ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. This application has been rejected by Court below observing that lease-deed has been executed in the name of Power of Attorney Holders and it is also not clear that for execution of sale-deed, who was paid consideration and there are pleadings on record to show that fraud has been played with respondents 1 to 8 and hence lease-deed has been cancelled by NOIDA therefore, neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor irreparable loss have been shown. 8. Learned counsel for Appellants contended that Power of Attorney was a registered document and lease deed was also executed by NOIDA, which is also a registered document, and on that basis, sale-deed was executed, construction has been raised and appellants also have possession over property in dispute. In these admitted facts, Court below was unjustified in denying ad interim injunction in favour of appellants. 9. With the consent of parties, we proceed to decide this appeal on the basis of record of appeal and dispense with the requirement of formal preparation of paper book. 10. It is contended that execution of Power of Attorney was already admitted by respondents 1 to 8 in Original Suit No. 1303 of 2011 when they signed the affidavit filed therein. Therefore, prima facie case was proved but Trial Court has erred in law in taking a different view in the matter. 10. It is contended that execution of Power of Attorney was already admitted by respondents 1 to 8 in Original Suit No. 1303 of 2011 when they signed the affidavit filed therein. Therefore, prima facie case was proved but Trial Court has erred in law in taking a different view in the matter. It is further contended that property in dispute is in possession of appellants, they have also raised constructions thereon and therefore, balance of convenience and irreparable loss also lie in favour of appellants but Trial Court still having declined to grant ad interim injunction has erred in law and therefore impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Following three points for determination, therefore have arisen in this appeal, which are required to be adjudicated for its decision: I. Whether plaintiff-appellants have shown any prima facie case and Trial Court has erred in law in holding otherwise? II. Whether balance of convenience and irreparable loss lay in favour of appellants? III. Whether Trial Court has rightly declined to grant ad interim injunction to appellants 12. Before answering rival issues, we may notice certain facts, as borne out from documents available before us. 13. Photocopy of general Power of Attorney, filed as Annexure 3 to the stay application accompanying appeal shows that the same was executed on 16.3.2011 by nine persons namely Ram Niwas, Nauraj, Charan Singh, Randhir, Dinesh (all sons of late Sri Ram Pat), Suresh, Mahesh, Vijay (all sons of late Veer Singh) and Smt. Roshni wife of late Veer Singh. All resident of Village Sadarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budha Nagar. The said Power of Attorney was in favour of Pawan Kumar son of late Hari Singh and Smt. Rashmi wife of Sri Naveen. Both were resident of Village Dadarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budha Nagar (U.P.). 14. The contents of Power of Attorney reads as under : “WHEREAS the Executants aforesaid are the absolute allottee of Agricultural land out of KHATA NO. 38 KHASRA NO. 214, AREA MEASURING 6050 SQ. YARDS, KHATA NO. 726 KHASRA NO. 181M, AREA MEASURING 544 SQ.YARDS, KHATA NO. 873/1043 KHASRA NO. 21M, AREA MEASURING 2232.88 SQ. YARDS, KHATA NO. 1044 KHASRA NO. 180, AREA MEASURING 3183 SQ. YARDS, KHATA NO. 873/1043 KHASRA NO. 547, AREA MEASURING 4195 SQ.YARDS, KHATA NO. 459 KHASRA NO. 404, AREA MEASURING 5400 SQ.YARDS total area measuring 26505.88 sq. YARDS, KHATA NO. 726 KHASRA NO. 181M, AREA MEASURING 544 SQ.YARDS, KHATA NO. 873/1043 KHASRA NO. 21M, AREA MEASURING 2232.88 SQ. YARDS, KHATA NO. 1044 KHASRA NO. 180, AREA MEASURING 3183 SQ. YARDS, KHATA NO. 873/1043 KHASRA NO. 547, AREA MEASURING 4195 SQ.YARDS, KHATA NO. 459 KHASRA NO. 404, AREA MEASURING 5400 SQ.YARDS total area measuring 26505.88 sq. yards, SITUATED IN VILLAGE SADARPUR, TEHSIL DADRI, DISTT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, (U.P.), and Noida Authority has already granted the compensation against the said property and it is the agreement between Noida and the executants that the Noida Authority shall allot a residential 5% plot against the said property and the Noida Authority shall allot a Residential Plot having area measuring 1325.294 yards i.e. 1108.07 sq. meters some more or less, situated at adjacent of VILLAGE SADARPUR, NOIDA, or any where else against the said category, NOIDA, DISTT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, U.P., hereinafter referred to as the property, hereinafter called the said property. AND WHEREAS we, the abovesaid Executants do hereby empower our general attorney to do the following acts, deeds and things in our name and on our behalf as under: 1. To manage, control and look-after the said property in all respect and to represent me/us before the concerned authority(ies) on our behalf under all circumstances. 2. to make application for the grant of quotas and permits of building materials and cement, to get sanctioned and to receive them under his/her/their own signature and for the same, to give any application, to file objection, to give statement, to receive the same under his/her/their own signature. 3. To obtain permission for the transfer of the said property by way of sale/nominate, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise from the concerned authority, or the competent authority, and to file statement, to file affidavit, undertaking etc., and to receive the same under his/her/their own signature. 4. To enter into any agreement to sell of the said property, with any one/one’s to receive the earnest/advance money, in his/her/their own name and to issue the receipts there of and to present the same for registration before the sub-registrar concerned to admit the execution thereof. 5. 4. To enter into any agreement to sell of the said property, with any one/one’s to receive the earnest/advance money, in his/her/their own name and to issue the receipts there of and to present the same for registration before the sub-registrar concerned to admit the execution thereof. 5. To make application for the grant of quotas and permits of building materials and cement for construct the building on abovesaid plot, to get sanctioned and to receive them under his/her/their own signature and for the same, to give any application, to file objection, to give statement, to receive the same under his/her/their own signature. 6. To Transfer the same property by way of Sale/nominate, Gift, Lease, Mortgage or Otherwise, and in this respect to execute the relevant documents, to present the same for registration to the competent authority, to receive the consideration amount if any, and to admit the execution and to get the same registered with sub-registrar concerned if required. 7. To get the same property mutated/nominate/transfer his/her/their name/names and to do the need full thereof. 8. To let out the said property, to receive the rent in his/her/their own name, to issue receipts etc. and to get the (tenants) to evicted through the Court of law or negotiations, if required. 9. To execute, sign, and present all kinds of suits, plaints, complaints, appeals, statements, etc. in the property Court of law in connection with the said property. 10. To proceed and conduct all the proceedings filed in connection with the said property. 11. To compromise, compound or withdraw the cases, to appoint arbitrators, to proceed in arbitration proceedings, to engage advocate, pleaders etc. to deposit and to withdraw money, to execute decrees to receive the recovery and decretal amount, to issue receipts and to take every step for the same. 12. To further appoint any one as General/Special attorney. 13. To deposit any dues, Taxes, Outgoing penalties if any, regarding the aforesaid to the concerned authority(ies) on demand and generally to do all acts, deeds and things which in the opinion in my/our attorney, sought to be done executed or performed for the management, control and supervision of the affairs of my our said property, even if they are not specifically mentioned, herein above as effected as I/we would have done if I/we would have present personally to do so. 14. 14. To sell the said property, to execute the sale-deed, transfer deed, lease deed, conveyance deed, sub-lease deed, to present the same for registration, to admit the execution, to receive the consideration amount in cash or demand draft, pay order, & cheques, to issue receipt and to get the same registered with the concerned authority. 15. To apply for the no-objection and No dues certificates of the said property from the concerned authority, and I the Executants do hereby confirm to ratify all and whatsoever my/our attorney may do or cause to be done by virtue of these presents and declare that this power of attorney is REVOCABLE. IN WITNESSES WHEREOF, WE THE EXECUTANTS have put our hands on these presents in the presence of the following witnesses, on the day, month and year hereinbelow mentioned.” 15. The two witnesses to Power of Attorney are Anil son of Suresh and Dharm Pal Singh son of late Sri Tek Chand and both are resident of Sadarpur, Sector 45, NOIDA. 16. The next document i.e. lease deed (Annexure 4 to the stay application filed accompanying appeal). Therein we find that “Lessor” is described as New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, a body corporate constituted under Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976) and “Lessees” are described as Ram Niwas, Nauraj, Charan Singh, Randhir, Dinesh son of late Sri Rampat, Suresh, Mahesh, Vijay, Smt. Rashni through Power of Attorney Holder Sri Pawan Kumar and Smt. Rashmi. This lease deed was executed on 27.9.2011 and both Power of Attorney Holders have put in their thumb impressions for execution of said document on behalf of Ram Niwas and 8 others. It was registered with Sub-Registrar II, NOIDA on 30.9.2011. A possession certificate is also on record as Annexure 5 to the stay application showing that on 30.9.2011 possession was taken from Junior Engineer of NOIDA by two Power of Attorney Holders. 17. The third document is Transfer deed cum Sale-deed of Leasehold property dated 13.10.2011, executed by Sri Pawan Kumar and Smt. Rashmi Singh, Power of Attorney Holders of Ram Niwas Singh and 8 others, addressing themselves as “Transferor”. This document is also registered with Sub-Registrar NOIDA on 13.10.2011. 18. NOIDA allowed aforesaid transfer vide Transfer memo dated 12.10.2011. 17. The third document is Transfer deed cum Sale-deed of Leasehold property dated 13.10.2011, executed by Sri Pawan Kumar and Smt. Rashmi Singh, Power of Attorney Holders of Ram Niwas Singh and 8 others, addressing themselves as “Transferor”. This document is also registered with Sub-Registrar NOIDA on 13.10.2011. 18. NOIDA allowed aforesaid transfer vide Transfer memo dated 12.10.2011. NOIDA allowed mutation of disputed property in the name of Appellants vide order dated 24.10.2011 and communicated the same to Appellants vide letter dated 24.10.2011. The application for sanction of map was submitted by Appellants. By certificate of sanction of building plan dated 7.5.2013, it was allowed to Appellants. It was communicated to Appellant-1, vide letter dated 22.10.2013, sent by NOIDA. A copy of plaint in Original Suit No. 758 of 2013, filed by seven Allottes, namely Ram Niwas, Nauraj, Charan Singh, Suresh, Mahesh, Vijay and Smt. Roshni impleading Pawan Kumar, Smt. Rashmi, all Appellants in the present case, and NOIDA as defendants 1 to 6 has been filed as Annxure 12 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application, wherein plaintiffs have sought following relief : ^^¼v½ ;g fd izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 ds }kjk voS/k o QthZ rkSj ij fu"ikfnr eq[rkjukekvke fnukafdr 16-03-2011 ds vk/kkj ij fu"ikfnr yht MhM fnukafdr 27-09-2011 ftldk iathdj.k cgh la[;k 1 ftYn la[;k 3671 ds i`"B la[;k 387 ls 430 ij Øekad 8866 ij fnukad 30-09-2011 dks mifucU/kd f}rh; ukS,Mk }kjk iathd`r fd;k x;k gS] dks voS/k o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr Qjek;k tk;sA ¼c½ ;g fd izfroknhx.k 3 ;k 5 dks }kjk loZdkyhu LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fu"ksf/kr fd;k tkos fd izfroknhx.k 3 ;k 5 clkt izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 rFkkdfFkr voS/k o QthZ VªkaLQj'MhM fnukafdr 13-10-2011 ds vk/kkj ij fuEu of.kZr Hkw[k.M ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fuekZ.k djus ;k fuEu of.kZr Hkw[kaM dh ukSfg;r dks cnyus ls ckt jgsaA ¼l½ ;g fd oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls okn O;; fnyk;k tk;A ¼n½ ;g fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks jk; vnkyr fgrdj izkFkhZx.k gks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA** “A. That the lease deed dated 27.9.2011 executed through the general Power of Attorney dated 16.3.2011 granted in a fake and illegal manner by the defendants 1 and 2 and registered on 30.9.2011 by the Sub-Registrar-II, NOIDA, against the serial No. 8866 on pages 387 to 430 of bahi (book) No. 1 zild No. 3671, may please be declared null and void. B. That a permanent injunction may please be issued restraining defendants 3 and 5, alongwith defendants 1 and 2, from raising construction of any kind on the following plots or any part thereof or from changing the character thereof on the basis of alleged illegal and fake transfer deed dated 13.10.2011. C. That cost of the suit filed by the plaintiff may please be imposed on the defendants. D. That any other relief, which in the eyes of the Court is beneficial to the applicants, may be awarded to be given by the defendants to them.” (English Translation by Court) 19. The original suit No. 1303 of 2011 was filed by two original Allottees, Randhir and Dinesh, Sons of late Sri Rampat, impleading three defendants i.e. Pawan Kumar, Smt. Rashmi and NOIDA and therein they sought following relief: ^^¼v½ ;g fd izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 dks }kjk loZdkyhu LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fd;k tkos fd izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 cSlkt deZpkjhx.k izfroknh uaŒ 3 oknhx.k ds fuEu of.kZr Hkw[kaMks dks fdlh Hkh izdkj] fdlh Hkh nhxj O;fDr dks gLrkUrfjr djus ls ckt jgsaA ¼c½ ;g fd oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls okn O;; fnyk;k tk;sA ¼l½ ;g fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks jk; vnkyr fgrdj oknhx.k gks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA** “A. That a permanent injunction may please be issued restraining the defendants 1 and 2 alongwith defendants No. 3, the employees, from handing over the following plots of the plaintiffs to any other person in whatsoever manner. B. That cost of the suit of the plaintiff may be imposed upon the defendants. C. That any other relief, which in the eyes of the Court is beneficial to the applicants, may be awarded to be given by the defendants to them.” (English Translation by Court) 20. An affidavit claim to have been sworn by Sri Ram Niwas, Nauraj, Charan Singh, Randhir, Dinesh, Suresh, Mahesh, Vijay and Smt. Roshni has been placed on record as Annexure 14 showing that Ram Niwas and others agreed to withdraw Case No. 1303 of 2011 on certain conditions mentioned therein but we find that suit No. 1303 of 2011 was filed only by two persons namely Randhir and Dinesh hence question of withdrawal of said suit by Ram Niwas and others does not arise. The aforesaid suit sought to be withdrawn by application dated 8.5.2012 submitted by Randhir and Dinesh and contents of said application reads as under: ^^Jheku th] mijksDr okn oknhx.k }kjk izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 ds fo:) loZdkyhu LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk nk;j fd;k x;k gSA oknhx.k }kjk fnukad 16-03-2011 dks tks eq[rkjukek vke izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mDr eq[rkjukek vke ds vk/kkj ij tks iathd`r yht MhM fnukafdr 27-09-2011 dks ckcr Hkw[kaM la[;k ,l Mh@,&1] lsDVj&45] ukS,Mk rFkk yht MhM fnukafdr 12-10-2011 ckor Hkw[kaM la[;k ,l Mh@,&2] lSDVj 45 ukS,Mk o yht MhM fnukafdr 30-03-2012 ckor Hkw[kaM la[;k Mh@,&3] lSDVj 45 ukS,Mk ds lEcU/k esa oknhx.k dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA mijksDr yht MhM fnukafdr 27-09-2011] 12-10-2011 o 30-03-2012 ds vk/kkj ij mijksDr Hkw[kaM dk gLrkUrj.k izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 djus ds fy, Lora= gS] ftlds dkj.k oknhx.k dks viuk mijksDr okn vkxs ugha pykuk gSA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr okn mijksDr ifjÁs{; esa fujLr Qjek;k tk;sA** “Sir, The aforesaid suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants 1 and 2. The general power of attorney has been executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 by the plaintiffs on 16.3.2001; by virtue of which registered lease-deed dated 27.9.2011 has been executed with respect to the plot No. SD/A-1, Sector 45, Noida; lease-deed dated 12.10.2011 with respect to the plot No. SD/A-2, Sector 45, Noida; and lease-deed dated 30.3.2012 with respect to plot No. ?D/A-3, Sector 45, Noida; to which the plaintiffs have no objections. On the basis of aforesaid lease-deeds dated 27.9.2011, 12.10.2011 and 30.3.2012, the defendants 1 and 2 are free to transfer the aforesaid plots, as a result of which the plaintiffs are not to pursue the case further. Hence, your respected good-self is prayed to dismiss the aforesaid suit in the aforesaid perspective.” (English Translation by Court) 21. On the basis of aforesaid lease-deeds dated 27.9.2011, 12.10.2011 and 30.3.2012, the defendants 1 and 2 are free to transfer the aforesaid plots, as a result of which the plaintiffs are not to pursue the case further. Hence, your respected good-self is prayed to dismiss the aforesaid suit in the aforesaid perspective.” (English Translation by Court) 21. Thereon Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed following order on 18.12.2012: ^^iqdkjkA oknhx.k mifLFkrA oknhx.k dh vksj ls mifLFkr fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izkFkZuki= 29d ij cy fn;k x;kA oknhx.k }kjk izkFkZuki= 29d bl vk'k; dk fn;k x;k gS fd oknhx.k }kjk tks eq[rkjukek vke izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS] ds vk/kkj ij iathd`r yht MhM fnukafdr 27-9-2011 ds laca/k esa oknhx.k dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA mijksDr yht MhM fnukad 27-09-2011] 12-10-11 o 30-3-2012 ds vk/kkj ij izfroknhx.k Hkw[k.M dk gLrkarj.k djus ds fy, Lora= gSaA oknhx.k viuk okn vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrs gSaA vr% okn okilh dh ;kpuk dh x;h gSA izfroknh uks,Mk dh vksj ls vkifRr dh x;hA lquk ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA oknhx.k viuk okn okil ysuk pkgrs gSaA izfroknh dh vksj ls vkifRr dh x;h gSA U;k;fgr esa izkFkZuki= 29d&1 Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkZuki= 29d vadu 1000@& :i;s gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa vk/kk vadu 500@& :i;s ftyk fof/kd lsok izkf/kdj.k esa tek fd;k tk;sxkA oknhx.k dk okn fu;ekuqlkj okil gksA i=koyh nkf[ky nrj gksA** “Called out. Plaintiffs appeared. The learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff laid emphasis on the application (29C). The application (29C) has been given by the plaintiffs to the effect that the plaintiffs have no objection to the registered lease-deed dated 27.9.2011 on the basis of the general power of attorney executed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 by the plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid lease-deeds dated 27.9.2011, 12.10.2011 and 30.3.2012, the defendants are free to transfer the plots of land. The plaintiffs do not want to pursue the case further; hence, a prayer has been made for withdrawal of the suit. Objection was raised on behalf of the defendant, Noida. Heard and perused the records. The plaintiffs want to withdraw their suit. Objection has been raised on behalf of the defendant. In the interest of justice, the application (29C1) deserves to be accepted. The application (29C) is accepted with the cost of Rs. Objection was raised on behalf of the defendant, Noida. Heard and perused the records. The plaintiffs want to withdraw their suit. Objection has been raised on behalf of the defendant. In the interest of justice, the application (29C1) deserves to be accepted. The application (29C) is accepted with the cost of Rs. 1000/-, the half amount of which Rs. 500/- shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Let the suit of the plaintiff be withdrawn as per rules. The records be consigned to record-room.” (English Translation by Court) 22. The basic argument precedes on the fact that once Power of Attorney was executed by respondents 1 to 8 in favour of respondents 9 and 10 and in the affidavit filed in Civil Court in Original Suit No. 1303 to 2011, all the said respondents had signed, the said Power of Attorney could not have been disputed subsequently and therefore subsequent transaction of execution of lease deed through Power of Attorney Holders cannot said to be patently illegal and prima facie case therefore lay in favour of appellants. Thus Court below has erred in law in denying ad interim injunction to Appellants only on the ground that NOIDA has cancelled lease-deed. 23. A ‘Power of Attorney’ is defined in Section 1(a) of Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) to include any instrument empowering a specific person to act for and in the name of person executing it. A ‘Power of Attorney’ is thus a written instrument by which one person who is described as ‘Principal’ appoints another as an ‘Agent’ and confers authority on him to perform certain specific acts on his behalf. The acts of agent or donee bind the person who confers the authority. 24. Section 2 of Act, 1882 reads as follows: “2. The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to Powers-of-Attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force.” 25. A Power of Attorney, thus, does not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in any immovable property. Where Donor of Power of Attorney authorises an Agent to execute an instrument, acting on his behalf, which will have effect of a transaction in respect of an immovable property, Power of Attorney does not by itself constitute a creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinguishment of a right, title or interest to or in any immovable property. 26. In State of Rajasthan and others v. Basant Nahata, 2005 (12) SCC 77, nature of a ‘Power of Attorney’ was clarified by Court stating : “13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Indian Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well-known, a document of convenience.” (emphasis added) 27. Supreme Court also clarified that execution of a deed of Power of Attorney is valid in law and subject to provisions of Act, is not compulsorily registerable. 28. Similarly in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana and another, 2012 (1) SCC 656 , Court said : “A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him...... It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him...... It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.” (emphasis added) 29. Following aforesaid decisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Kant Mishra v. State of U.P. and another, 2014(6) ADJ 720 , has held : “...a power of attorney does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) for the simple reason that the donor by the execution of the document only authorises the donee to act on his behalf and the instrument itself does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in immovable property.” 30. In view thereof, it is a document which is optionally registerable as provided in Section 18 of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1908”). However, when a document, whether compulsorily registrable or optionally, is presented for Registration, provisions of Section 32 of Act, 1908 would come into play, which reads as under : “32. Persons to present documents for registration : Except in the cases mentioned in Sections 31, 88 and 89, every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office: (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.” 31. Clause (c) of Section 32 stipulates that a document when presented for registration by executant or by a representative or assignee, such Power of Attorney has to be executed and authenticated in the manner mentioned thereafter. 32. Section 32A of Act, 1908 provides for affixation of a photograph and fingerprint to the document. Then Section 33 of Act, 1908 reads as under : “33. 32. Section 32A of Act, 1908 provides for affixation of a photograph and fingerprint to the document. Then Section 33 of Act, 1908 reads as under : “33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of Section 32.—(1) For the purposes of Section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognized, namely: (a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of India in which this Act is for the time being in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides; (b) if the principal at the time aforesaid resides in any part of India in which this Act is not in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by any Magistrate; (c) if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government: Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration-office or Court for the purpose of executing any such power-of-attorney as is mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this section, namely:— (i) persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious inconvenience so to attend; (ii) persons who are in jail under civil or criminal process; and (iii) persons exempt by law from personal appearance in Court. Explanation.—In this sub-section “India” means India, as defined in clause (28) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897). (2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate, as the case may be, if satisfied that the power-of-attorney has been voluntarily executed by the person purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without requiring his personal attendance at the office or Court aforesaid. (3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate may either himself go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a commission for his examination. (3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate may either himself go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a commission for his examination. (4) Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be proved by the production of it without further proof when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and authenticated by the person or Court hereinbefore mentioned in that behalf.” (emphasis added) 33. Section 33, therefore, provides a situation under which alone, Powers of Attorney would be recognised for the purpose of Section 34. Sub-section (1) Clause (a) of Section 33 provides and contemplates that if a principal resides in India, Power of Attorney has to be executed before and authenticated by Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides. 35. Section 33(2) of Act, 1908 contemplates that Registrar or Sub-Registrar in the case of every such person, if satisfied, that Power of Attorney has been voluntarily executed by the person purporting to be principal, may attest it, without requiring his personal attendance at the office or Court aforesaid. 36. For authentication under Section 33 of Act, 1908, the matter has been considered in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastida and another, (2009) 14 SCC 728. Court said that it is only in a case where the person who has signed the document cannot present it before Registering Officer and furnishes a Power of Attorney to another to present the document that Section 33 comes into operation. It is only in such a case that Power of Attorney has to be executed or authenticated in such manner which is provided in Section 33(1)(a). Section 32, when read together with Section 33(1)(a) would make it abundantly clear, where a person who has executed the instrument is unable to remain present before Registering Officer for the purpose of presenting the document for registration, and, document is presented by Holder of a Power of Attorney, it has to be executed and authenticated in the manner, which is provided for in Section 33(1)(a). 37. 37. In the present case, we are not examining the question about validity of registration of Power of Attorney but reason as to why we have noticed the above provisions is that Power of Attorney though required optional registration, but, in the present case, as a matter of fact, it is claimed to have been registered. This is probably for the purpose of generating better confidence for subsequent transaction(s). However, then we find that Executants are all residents of Village Sadarpur; the person in whose favour it was executed belong to Village Sadarpur of District Gautam Budha Nagar (U.P.); the Witnesses are residents of Village Sadarpur; Power of Attorney is claimed to have been executed on 16th March, 2011 but on the same day it was interestingly registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Surajpur, District Sarguja (State of Chhatisgarh), a place about more than 1000 kms. from Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.). 38. We really failed to understand how all these persons could execute the document in State of Chhatisgarh when all are residents of Sadarpur in Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) and in any case it did not satisfy requirements of Section 33(1)(a). This act of registration in State of Chhatisgarh raises a serious doubt over genuineness of aforesaid document. Since this issue is directly involved in the suit in question as well as original suit No. 758 of 2013 filed by defendants Ram Niwas and others, we are refraining ourselves from expressing any final opinion in the matter but are satisfied that even though property in question is in possession of Appellants in view of sale-deed they have got executed through Power of Attorney Holders i.e. respondents 9 and 10, but the very authority of these Power-of-Attorney Holders is under serious cloud and the document, prima facie, lacks genuineness, therefore, it cannot be said that here is a case where Appellants have shown a prima facie case in their favour. 39. We, therefore, answer point for determination I against appellants. 40. 39. We, therefore, answer point for determination I against appellants. 40. Now, coming to points for determination II and III, which we propose to answer together, it is true that balance of convenience and irreparable loss lie in favour of the Appellants for the reason that they are in possession over property in dispute, construction is also standing thereon but in order to grant ad interim injunction, all the three conditions are mandatorily required to be satisfied i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of appellants. As we have discussed above that in the present case very first requirement is lacking, hence grant of ad interim injunction to appellants is not justified and has rightly been rejected by Court below. We answer both the points II and III accordingly holding that Trial Court has rightly declined to grant ad interim injunction to appellants. 41. In view of thereof, we find no fault on the part of Court below in declining to grant ad interim injunction in favour of appellants. 42. The appeal lacks merit. Dismissed. 43. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 44. We further direct that since in the present case issues raised in Original Suit No. 758 of 2013 are also involved in the Suit No. 33 of 2015, wherefrom present First Appeal From Order has arisen, and parties are broadly also common, therefore, Court below shall consolidate both the suits and proceed to decide the same expeditiously, together, in accordance with law.