JUDGMENT C.L. SONI, J. 1. In the appeal with civil application, notice for final disposal was issued and the arguments were heard for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, ("the Code") against the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Viramgam below application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.189 of 2012 ( to be referred as 'the present suit'), whereby, learned Judge has partly allowed the application and ordered the parties to the suit to maintain status-quo relating to the ownership and possession of the suit lands till final disposal of the suit. 3. The respondent No.1-the plaintiff Company has filed the present suit to declare that the lands being block / survey Nos.439, 440, 441 (the suit lands) are of the ownership and in possession of the plaintiff company wherein, the defendants have never acquired any right or interest; that no right or interest could be acquired on the basis of forged and false documents and to declare that the sale deeds made on 21.12.1996 by defendant no. 1 and 2-the respondent no. 2 and 3 in their favour by forging signature of the Chairman / the Managing Director Shri Lalluram M. Sonkar, the sale deeds executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the office of sub-registrar in Viramgam in favour of the defendant No.3-the Appellant no.1 and the sale deeds dated 28.05.2009 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.4-the respondent no.4 for the suit lands are illegal, null and void ab initio. The plaintiff company has also asked for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.4 from transferring, alienating the suit lands, or creating any third party interest in suit lands and from creating any charge of any co-operative society or bank or any financial institution and from interfering with its possession of the suit lands. 4. As per the case of the plaintiff company, it purchased suit lands by different sale deeds dated 12.10.1994 for starting industrial unit, however, because of adverse circumstances, it was not possible for it to start industrial unit and the suit lands remained with it as non-agriculture lands. 4. As per the case of the plaintiff company, it purchased suit lands by different sale deeds dated 12.10.1994 for starting industrial unit, however, because of adverse circumstances, it was not possible for it to start industrial unit and the suit lands remained with it as non-agriculture lands. However, taking undue benefits of continued absence of the officers and the Chairman / Managing Director shri Lalluram from the Gujarat State, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 made false sale deeds on 21.12.1996 for suit lands in their favor by forging signature of the Chairman/Managing Director of the plaintiff Company and they then illegally transferred the suit lands to defendant No.3 by making illegal and false documents of sale deeds. It is further case of the plaintiff Company that the Chairman/Managing Director Shri Lalluram M. Sonkar had given power of attorney dated 08.06.1996 to Shri Satish Bajaj and Renuben Bajaj( to be referred as Mr. & Mrs. Bajaj), and they, on the basis of power of attorney, filed Special Civil Suit No.60 of 2006 (to be referred as 'the first suit') for decree to cancel the registered sale deeds dated 21.12.1996 made in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2; that since pending the suit they came to know that the defendant no.1 and 2 further sold the suit lands to defendant no.3, he was joined in the said suit, and moreover, the criminal complaint was also filed against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam, but pending the criminal proceedings further sale deeds were made in favour of the defendant no.4 to defeat the rights of plaintiff Company in pending suit. It is further case of the plaintiff Company that the Chairman / Managing Director shri Lalluram M. Sonkar expired on 29.01.2011 and the son of deceased Shri Lalluram M. Sonkar became the new Chairman / Managing Director of the plaintiff Company who was given full authority to do all necessary acts for the suit lands and he appointed Shri B.R. Pandey as power of attorney and it was decided to withdraw the first suit, for the circumstances stated in the plaint, to file fresh suit and then the present suit is filed pending the first suit. 5. 5. It is not in dispute that the present suit is filed for the same relief as prayed in above suit and new power of attorney holder Mr. Pandey made application to withdraw the first suit. The copy of the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam permitting withdrawal of the first suit is made available to the Court for its perusal. As recorded in the order, Mr. and Mrs. Bajaj- the power of attorney of earlier Chairman of the plaintiff Company objected to withdrawal of the first suit on various grounds. However, learned Judge disposed of the first suit as per the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 and section 151 of the Code. The above order is challenged by Mr. and Mrs. Bajaj by filing Special Civil Application No.7878 of 2014 wherein learned Single Judge of this Court passed order dt.03.12.2014 for admitting the petition and staying the order for disposal of the first suit. In the order granting stay, the Court has also clarified that if any part of the suit lands is further transferred, the pendency of the said petitions shall be brought to the notice of such transferee and that any equity created by any party shall be subject to the final outcome of the said petition. 6. Learned Senior advocate Mr.Deven Parikh appearing with learned advocate Mr. Sunil Joshi submitted that the present suit was filed when earlier suit was pending for the same relief and withdrawal of the said suit was not with permission to file fresh suit and therefore present suit is not maintainable and in such suit, no injunction could have been granted by learned Judge. Mr.Parikh submitted that first sale deeds were made in the year 1996 in favour of the defendant no.1 and 2 and for long time no challenge was made to such sale deeds by the then Chairman. Mr. Parikh submitted that new power of attorney Mr. Pandey who was authorized to withdraw first suit, has filed the present suit as power of attorney of the new Chairman of the plaintiff Company. Mr. Mr. Parikh submitted that new power of attorney Mr. Pandey who was authorized to withdraw first suit, has filed the present suit as power of attorney of the new Chairman of the plaintiff Company. Mr. Parikh submitted that the plaintiff Company then decided to resolve the dispute in the present suit and passed resolution giving full authority to resolve the dispute concerning the suit lands, to withdraw pending suit and criminal complaint and to confirm all sale deeds executed for the suit lands and to receive payment for execution of the confirmation deeds. Mr.Parikh submitted that as per the above decision, the new Chairman, after execution of the registered documents for confirmation of the sale deeds etc., received payments against execution of such documents, however, to defeat the rights of the appellants, the plaintiff Company filed another suit being Special Civil suit No.248 of 2015 for declaration that all documents allegedly executed on behalf of the plaintiff Company are false. Mr.Parikh submitted that the appellant No.2 is a bona fide purchaser who paid full consideration for the suit lands to the appellant no.1. Mr. Parikh submitted that learned Judge failed to consider the important aspects that the present suit is not maintainable and no injunction could be granted in such suit as the first suit was disposed of without permission to file fresh suit; that the plaintiff Company received amounts from the appellant no.1 for executing registered confirmation deed and other documents and as regards the conduct of the plaintiff Company after withdrawal of the first suit and committed grave error in granting equitable relief to the plaintiff Company . Mr.Parikh submitted that when learned judge has refused injunction in Special Civil Suit No.248 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff company to challenge the confirmation deed and other documents, learned Judge was not justified in granting interim injunction of status-quo relating to the ownership and possession of suit lands in favour of the plaintiff Company in the present suit. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Vimal Patel appearing with learned advocate Mr.Hitesh Patel for the plaintiff Company submitted that first sale deeds of 1996 were made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their favour by forging the signature of the then Chairman of the plaintiff Company. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Vimal Patel appearing with learned advocate Mr.Hitesh Patel for the plaintiff Company submitted that first sale deeds of 1996 were made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their favour by forging the signature of the then Chairman of the plaintiff Company. Mr.Patel submitted that when the first sale deeds were fraudulently made, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 could not be said to have acquired any valid right, title and interest in the suit lands and, therefore, the subsequent sale deeds including the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant no.2 would not pass any valid right, title and interest in the suit lands in favour of the subsequent purchasers of the suit lands.. Mr.Patel submitted that with passing away of earlier Chairman, the power of attorney given by him ceased to operate and, therefore, a conscious decision was taken by the plaintiff Company to withdraw the first Suit and to file fresh suit and for such purpose, the new Chairman was authorized and the present suit was then filed through new power of attorney Mr. Pandey appointed by the new Chairman. Mr.Patel submitted that the present suit was filed after the decision was taken by the plaintiff Company to withdraw the first suit to file fresh suit as the first suit could not have been continued by the power of attorney holder after death of earlier chairman and therefore, it cannot be said that the present suit is not maintainable. Mr.Patel submitted that the confirmation deed and other documents stated to have been executed in favour of the appellant No.1 are all false and fabricated, in respect of which, the plaintiff Company has already filed Special Civil Suit No.248 of 2015. Mr.Patel submitted that criminal complaint as regards forging the signature of the earlier Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff Company is also pending. Mr.Patel further submitted that considering all the above aspects, learned Judge has rightly recorded in the impugned order that for deciding the rights claimed in the suit, the parties should have sufficient opportunities to produce evidence and therefore learned judge has not committed in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff Company have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff Company and in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff Company. 8. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Jaykar B. Patel appears for respondent no..2 and 3 and states that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 support the case of the appellants and he adopts the arguments made on behalf of the appellants. Though served with the notice, the respondent no.4 has chosen not to appear before the Court. 9. The Court, having heard learned advocates, finds that the first suit was filed in the name of plaintiff Company by Mr. & Mrs. Bajaj as power of attorney of the then Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff Company Shri Lalluram Sonkar. However, Shri Bindeshwarprasad Pandey, stated to be the power of attorney appointed by the new Chairman of the plaintiff Company, filed an application to withdraw the first suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code provides for grant of permission to file fresh suit. However, as stated above, the first suit was disposed of under Order XXIII Rule 1 and section 151 of the Code and for reasons recorded by learned Judge in the order for disposal of the first suit, permission to file fresh suit was not granted though asked for by the plaintiff Company. However, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BABULAL & ORS V/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD & ORS reported in, (2014) 16 SCC 680 relied on by learned advocate Mr. Patel, this Court is not to decide on the issue relating to maintainability of the present suit while dealing with the matter relating to vacation of order of temporary injunction. However, the fact remains that the Plaintiff Company has accepted above order as it has not challenged such order, but it is challenged by Mr. & Mrs. Bajaj in their individual capacity. 10. The appellant No.2, who is stated to have purchased the suit lands on 21.10.2014, is the last purchaser of the suit lands. He is, therefore, joined as party defendant No.5 in the present suit on 28.03.2016. 11. The appellant no.1- the defendant no.3 has produced some documents with the list of documents in the present suit. From amongst those documents, the following documents need to be referred. (a) The copy of resolution dated 21.11.2013. (b) The copy of receipt dated 29.11.2013 issued by the new Chairman for receiving payment of Rs. 6100056/- in connection with the suit lands. From amongst those documents, the following documents need to be referred. (a) The copy of resolution dated 21.11.2013. (b) The copy of receipt dated 29.11.2013 issued by the new Chairman for receiving payment of Rs. 6100056/- in connection with the suit lands. (c) The Xerox copy of statement of account of appellant no.1 from State Bank of India. (d) The copy of the settlement purshis filed by the new Chairman in Criminal case no.1178 of 2011 praying to drop the proceeding. (e) The copy of the confirmation deed (kabulatnama) dated 29.11.2013 alleged to have been executed by the new Chaiman in favour of Shejalben who had purchased part of the suit lands from appellant no.1. (f) Similarly, the copy of the confirmation deed dated 29.11.2013 in favour of respondent no.4- defendant no.4 who had also purchased part of suit lands from appellant no.1 and the copy of the confirmation deed dated 30.11.2013 in favour of the appellant no.1. 12. Learned Senior advocate Mr.Parikh submitted that last sale transaction for the suit lands in favour of the appellant No.2 from appellant no.1 was after above documents were executed and settlement purshis was filed and after receipt of above amounts by the plaintiff Company towards final settlement against its claims in the suit lands. 13. The plaintiff company has however filed Special Civil Suit No.248 of 2015 seeking declaration that the resolution, confirmation deeds, the compromise/settlement purshis are bogus. Learned Judge has refused to grant injunction in the above suit mainly on the grounds that the plaintiff company could have amended the present suit, that it has already prayed similar injunction in the present suit, and that the dispute concerning the documents shall be decided after recording evidence. 14. So far as the present suit is concerned, Learned Judge has observed in paragraph No.17 of the impugned order passed in present suit as under: "[17] It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the no compromise has been done by the plaintiff company. It is alleged that, it is fabricated that there was the strike in the Plaintiff Company and meeting of its directors was held and resolution was passed in that meeting. It is also alleged by the plaintiff company that all these documents have been fabricated. It is alleged that, it is fabricated that there was the strike in the Plaintiff Company and meeting of its directors was held and resolution was passed in that meeting. It is also alleged by the plaintiff company that all these documents have been fabricated. Now, it is required to be noted that Rajendrakumar Sonkar made affidavit dated 17.1.2014 before Registrar of this Court, wherein he has stated regarding 'Agreement for Sale' dated 18.9.2012 made in favour of Bindeshwreyprasad Pandey and it has been stated regarding agreement of hand over of the possession of the suit lands. He has also stated in his affidavit regarding receiving payment from Bindeshwreyprasad Pandey. He has stated that no compromise has been done with the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. He has denied that notice was issued regarding cancellation of Power of Attorney of Bindeshwreyprasad Pandey. He has stated that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had taken his signatures in some papers with the help of anti social elements. Further, the plaintiff has produced affidavit of Rajendrakumar Sonakar vide Mark 48/10, made before Registrar of this Court, wherein the facts of the earlier affidavit have been reiterated and it is stated that Power of Attorney executed in favour of Bindeshwreyprasad Pandey, has not been cancelled. It is stated that the plaintiff has not taken any amount from the defendants and the plaintiff has not given and receipt thereof. He has stated that he did not go to Registrar office and also he did not meet Notary B.R. Joshi. It is further stated that as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created bogus documents, Satishkumar Bajaj had filed complaint as he was the then Power of Attorney holder. He has stated that he has no right to withdraw the complaint or make compromise. The said affidavit was made on 29.12.2014 in this Court, in which Advocate A.J. Thakor had given identification. If facts of the affidavit of Rejendrakumar Sonkar is believed, perusing documents vide Mark 39/9 and 39/10, these documents are registered, and at the time of registration, photograph of Rajendrakumar Sonkar was taken before Registrar Office, and his finger print was also taken. In these circumstances, the entire facts of the affidavit of Rajendrakumar Sonkar does not appear to be believed. It appears that he is suppressing some important facts before this Court. In these circumstances, the entire facts of the affidavit of Rajendrakumar Sonkar does not appear to be believed. It appears that he is suppressing some important facts before this Court. Moreover, it is not the case of the plaintiff that bogus Sale-deed was executed in the Registrar office or the photograph taken in the Registrar office is not his photograph, or other person's photograph was taken in place of his photograph, or the registrar has not been joined in the suit as the defendant. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that no complaint has been filed against the registrar of any crime was done in the office of the Registrar. Thus, the entire case of the plaintiff is suspicious. Moreover, if Rajendrakumar Sonkar states that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Bindeshwreyprasad Pandey on dated 28.11.2012, has not been cancelled, then Rajendrakumar Sonakar on behalf of the plaintiff company has filed suit being SPCS NO.248/2015 in this Court and against the same defendants, wherein, in the suit, and in the interim injunction application, the same Rajendrakumar Sonkar has made his signature and he has also made affidavit regarding pleadings. Now, if Power of Attorney in favour of Bindeshwreyprasad Pandeuy is in existence, Rajendrakumar Sonkar does not require to give his own signature. Moreover, in this suit, it appears that Irrecoverable Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Bindeshwreyprasad Pandey on dated 6.5.2015. The copy of the said Irrecoverable Power of Attorney has been produced vide Mark 27/1 in SPCS No.248/2015. Now, if Power of Attorney dated 28.11.2012 is in existence, there is no need to execute Power of Attorney dated 6.5.2015. Thus, considering all these facts, the pleadings of Rajendrakumar Sonkar is suspicious." 15. The copy of the receipt dated 29.11.2013, referred above, stated to have been issued by the new Chairman reveals the details of payment of deferent amounts by demand draft and cheques and payment of some amount in cash. The copy of statement of Bank Account of the appellant no.1, referred above, reveals the different entries in statement of Bank account of the appellant no.1, showing transfer of the amounts of cheques to the plaintiff Company. When specifically asked to learned advocate Mr. Patel as to whether the plaintiff Company received the above amount of Rs. 6100056/-, Mr. Patel stated on instruction that the plaintiff Company received such amount. 16. When specifically asked to learned advocate Mr. Patel as to whether the plaintiff Company received the above amount of Rs. 6100056/-, Mr. Patel stated on instruction that the plaintiff Company received such amount. 16. When, the receipt of the above amount could not be denied by the Plaintiff Company, the contents of the resolution 21.11.2013 bear relevance to prima facie find that the above amount would have been received pursuant to the decision taken by the plaintiff Company as contained the resolution. The resolution dated 21.11.2013 reads as under: "Today dated 21.11.2013 in the meeting of Board of directors & share holders of the Company it is unanimously resolve that dispute of the land Block survey No.439, 440, 441 of Mouje Jakhavada, Taluka Viamgam, District Ahmadabad which is pending before the Civil Court Viramgam by Civil Suit No.189/2012 and also criminal Complaint No.1178/2011 and any other litigation if any pending before any court of law is resolved between the parties to suit and accordingly it is decided that the company needs to confirm sales deed no.1526,1527,1528,1529 in the year 1996 and also further transaction vide sale deed no.277/2006, sale deed No.1166/2007 and sale deed registration No.937/2009 is required so to be confirm with consent of all the Directors & share holders of the Company and Mr.Rajendra Laloo Ram Sonker (Director) is hereby authorized to all necessary acts and withdraw the Civil suit and criminal complaint pending before the Court of law on behalf of the Company. It is further resolved that Mr.Rajendra kumar is also authorized to receive the payment from parties and to execute any relevant documents related to the above lands." 17. As observed by learned Judge in above para-17 of the impugned order, the confirmation deeds are registered and at the time of registration, the photographs of the new Chairman were taken. With this observation, learned Judge has also observed that the entire case of the plaintiff is suspicious. Learned Judge has also taken note of the stay granted by learned single Judge of this court in the petition filed by Mr. & Mrs. Bajaj against the order for disposal of the first suit wherein no injunction is granted. 18. The Court finds that in face of above observations, learned Judge committed error in finding that the plaintiff company has prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff company. & Mrs. Bajaj against the order for disposal of the first suit wherein no injunction is granted. 18. The Court finds that in face of above observations, learned Judge committed error in finding that the plaintiff company has prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff company. Since, the plaintiff Company has filed Special Civil Suit No.248 of 2015 seeking declaration that the confirmation deeds and other documents are bogus, the Court finds it appropriate not to make any observation on such documents. However, receipt of the above amount by the plaintiff Company, being vital on the conduct of the plaintiff Company which was lost sight by learned Judge and since long time has passed after the suit lands have changed hands, the Court finds that the plaintiff company did not deserve grant of equitable relief in its favour. 19. In the case Mandali Ranganna and Others Vs. T. Ramachandra and Others reported in, (2008) 11 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme court has held and observed in para-21 and 22 as under: "21. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. 22. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The courts dealing with such matters must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively." 20. In light of above and for reasons stated above, the impugned order is required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under order XLIII of the Code. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively." 20. In light of above and for reasons stated above, the impugned order is required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under order XLIII of the Code. However, the appellants are required to be directed to intimate/inform the trial Court by filing appropriate purshis in the proceeding of the present suit if there is further transfer of the suit lands or part thereof and to bring to the notice of the transferee the pendency of the present suit. 21. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The appellants are, however, directed to intimate/inform the trial Court as regards any further transfer of the suit lands or part thereof by filing appropriate purshis in the proceedings of the present suit and also to bring to the notice of the transferee the pendency of the present suit. The Appeal is thus finally disposed of. 22. Since the Appeal is finally disposed of, the Civil Application shall not survive. Hence, it is disposed of accordingly. 23. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Patel requests to suspend the present order for eight weeks to enable the plaintiff Company to challenge it before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such request is opposed by learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the appellants. The Court however finds that since there is no interim stay granted in the Appeal, interim injunction granted by the Trial Court has continued till date. The parties are, therefore, ordered to maintained status quo as regards ownership and possession of the suit lands for a period of six weeks from today.