JUDGMENT/ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. This Appeal arises from the Order dated 15.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court (2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) below injunction application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 366 of 2016. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has restrained the defendants from dealing with the suit property, which is challenged by the defendants in this Appeal. 2. Learned advocate for the appellants - original defendants has submitted that, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the facts and law and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that going by the case of the plaintiffs themselves, no injunction could have been granted inasmuch as, one of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is that, the registered document, cancelling the earlier agreement to sell, be declared as null and void. It is submitted that on the face of this, the plaintiffs can not be said to have even prima facie case qua the principal prayer of specific performance of the cancelled document. It is further submitted that even the documents on record are not appropriately taken into consideration by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the power of attorney was acting against the interest of the donor of the power that aspect was matter of record, and still the same is not properly taken into consideration by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and the same needs to be interfered with. 3. On the other hand, learned advocates for the original plaintiffs have submitted that, the Trial Court has not committed any error in recording its prima-facie satisfaction and granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court. In support of their submissions, learned advocates for the respondents original plaintiffs have taken this Court extensively through the paper-book and have contended that, the plaintiffs were entitled to ask for specific performance of the agreement to sell and the Trial Court has not committed any error by accepting the case of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that this Appeal be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 The defendants are the original land owners. It is submitted that this Appeal be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 The defendants are the original land owners. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell, declaration and permanent injunction. 4.2 The reliefs sought in the suit indicate that, the plaintiffs have also prayed vide Para : 14(C), for declaration to the effect that, the document registered at Registration No.1469 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-13 (City Taluka) on 15.07.2015 be declared as null and void. The said document is to the effect that the earlier agreement to sell (of the suit land) is cancelled. A copy of the said document is on record. 4.3 The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is based on the argument of the plaintiffs that they have prima facie case to get specific performance of the agreement to sell, which they themselves have cancelled by a registered deed. 4.4 This Court finds that, on the face of the above pleading, the Trial Court fell in error to come to conclusion that the plaintiffs have prima facie case, to seek specific performance of a cancelled document. The impugned order therefore needs to be interfered with on this count alone. 5. x xx x xX x xX 5.1 There are other glaring aspects which would further tilt the balance against the plaintiffs. 5.2 The Trial Court has recorded its satisfaction (in Para : 9 of the impugned order) to the effect that, "...The cancellation of Banakhat is one-sided therefore, not according to law. In this way the plaintiffs have prima-facie case." This Court finds that, the Trial Court has thus adjudicated prayer clause 14(C) in favour of the plaintiffs and has granted consequential relief to them by granting injunction qua the suit property against the land owners. This could not have been done. Even if this is accepted to be permissible, the Trial Court fell in error even on facts, since there are additional documents signed by the plaintiffs themselves in the form of documents Mark : 30/1 and 30/2, which close the entire case of the plaintiffs against them. The Trial Court has in Para : 7 of the impugned order taken note of these documents. It has in substance adjudicated those documents, without trial. The Trial Court has in Para : 7 of the impugned order taken note of these documents. It has in substance adjudicated those documents, without trial. It is this perversity, which needs to be corrected by this Court. It is noted that, it is not even the case of the plaintiffs that those documents are forged or that, it does not bear their signature. Thus, either at this stage this point could not be adjudicated by the Trial Court, and if at all it was to be done, it could not be a factor in favour of the plaintiffs. On the contrary, it would tilt balance against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thus can not be said to have even prima facie case and in any case, the balance of convenience was against them. The impugned order is therefore unsustainable. 5.3 It is also required to be noted that, those documents (Mark 30/1 and 30/2) were required to be produced by the plaintiffs themselves, which they did not. This may also amount to suppression of material fact, which would be a factor against the plaintiffs. 5.4 It is also a matter of record that, the plaintiffs are attempting to take advantage of the power of attorney changing his side, against the donor. In this regard reference needs to be made to application Exh. 22. By the said application, the power of attorney attempted to join the litigation, against the interest of the donor of the power the present appellants, which the Trial Court had rejected. The order of the Trial Court dated 27.03.2017 passed below Application Exh.22 has attained finality. This is an additional factor which should weigh against the plaintiffs. 5.5 Even if it is assumed that the case of the plaintiffs needs to be considered on merits at this stage, when it is a case of specific performance of an agreement to sell, the readiness and capacity of the plaintiffs to discharge their obligation would be a relevant aspect. In this regard, it is noted that the plaintiffs have attempted to blow hot and cold together in the plaint and in the document for cancellation of agreement to sell. Reference in this regard needs to be made to the contents of Para: 7 of the plaint and the contents of Para: 3 of the document cancelling the agreement to sell. Reference in this regard needs to be made to the contents of Para: 7 of the plaint and the contents of Para: 3 of the document cancelling the agreement to sell. On conjoint consideration of this material, this Court finds that the plaintiffs even at a later stage are less likely to succeed on merits. It is noted that since the matter is large open before the Trial Court, it would not be proper to further deliberate on these aspects and these observations are only tentative and the Trial Court shall decide the issues before it, as and when framed by it, on its own merits. Suffice it to hold that, this was not the case where any injunction qua the suit land could be granted against the defendants. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This Appeal from Order is allowed. 6.2 The impugned Order passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 15.04.2017 below injunction application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 366 of 2016 is quashed and set-aside. The said application is dismissed.