JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Y.H. Vyas waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respective respondent. 2. As the common question and facts are involved in both petitions, joint request was made by learned advocates appearing from the respective parties to decide both the petitions by passing common order. 3. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No.11604 of 2021 have challenged the order dated 17.07.2021 passed below Exh.6 and 14 in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2021 and petitioners in Special Civil Application No.11606 of 2021 have challenged the order dated 17.07.2021 passed below Exh.7 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021 by learned Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha (Idar). 4. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under: Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2009 was filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondent No.2 for declaration and permanent injunction wherein the plaintiff has challenged registered sale deed dated 10.07.2006 executed in favour of the present petitioner and Shri Mushbhai Kala by the power of attorney holder on 24.01.2007. Respondent No.1, original plaintiff also filed Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 before the learned Civil Court at Idar for declaration and permanent injunction and challenged the power of attorney dated 10.07.2006 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in the suit. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing the written statement. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial court and issues were framed vide Exh.29. Interim injunction application, Exh.5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 was rejected by the trial court. In Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2009, application below Exh.5 as well as application Exh.12 were filed for injunction, which were also rejected by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 20.10.2009. Against the said order, Appeal From Order No.67 of 2009 was preferred before the learned Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha by the original plaintiff, in which vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2010, order of status quo was passed. As both the suits being No.59 of 2009 and No.11 of 2009 were consolidated, common evidence was led by the parties and after hearing the parties, learned Principal Civil Judge, Vijaynagar, vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2021, was pleased to allow both these suits. As both the suits being No.59 of 2009 and No.11 of 2009 were consolidated, common evidence was led by the parties and after hearing the parties, learned Principal Civil Judge, Vijaynagar, vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2021, was pleased to allow both these suits. Present petitioners, being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 24.03.2021 in both the suits, preferred Regular Civil Appeal Nos.4/ 2021 and 5/ 2021 before the District Court, Sabarkantha. They also filed one application below Exh. 6 and 14 for injunction in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2021. They also filed two applications and Exh.7 and 15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021. Learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the parties, was pleased to reject the injunction application filed by the petitioners below Exh.7 and 15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021. The applications Exh. 6 and 14 preferred by the petitioner in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2021 was also rejected vide order dated 17.07.2021. Hence, present petition preferred by the petitioners. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondents. 6. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that refusal of granting injunction as prayed by the petitioners by the court below is contrary to facts and law. That impugned orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Idar below Exh.6 and Exh.14 in Regular Civil Application No.4 of 2021 as well as below Exh.7 and 15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021 are erroneous and illegal. It was further submitted that in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 preferred by the respondent against present petitioners before the District Court at Himmatnagar, DistSabarkantha, the First Appellate Court has observed that present petitioners are the bona fide purchaser of the suit property and they are in possession of the suit property at the time of concluding the Civil Appeal From Order on 14.12.2010. The petitioners were directed to maintain the status quo of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit having their possession. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being the purchaser of the suit property, are in possession by virtue of sale deed since last more than 12 years, and therefore, the District court could not refuse to grant injunction during the pendency of the appeal. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being the purchaser of the suit property, are in possession by virtue of sale deed since last more than 12 years, and therefore, the District court could not refuse to grant injunction during the pendency of the appeal. It is further submitted that trial court has failed to consider the provision of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1996 (1) GLH (U.J.) Page 28. 7. Per contra, learned advocate appearing from the respondents has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners and supported the observations and finding arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha at Idar in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2021 and Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021 in connection with the order passed below Exh.6 and 14 as well as Exh.7 and 15 refusing for interim injunction. It is further submitted that the petitioners were never in the possession of the suit property as clear findings after recording the evidence was arrived at by deciding the Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 by the trial court. It is further submitted that trial court has clearly observed that document Exh. 78 was not notarized nor any proper stamp was affixed, and therefore, the said document cannot be accepted by the Court. It is further submitted that as per the finding arrived by the trial court in the suit, the defendant no.1 has not given any power to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 to 7 (present petitioners). The power was misused and registered sale deed was executed, therefore it was beyond the scope of the defendant No.1. That the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his case by proving issue Nos.1 and 2 and defendant has failed to establish the issue No.3. It is further submitted that while passing the order by the trial court on 24.03.2021, no prayer was made by the present petitioners to grant status quo or any interim relief. It is further submitted that, thereafter, at the time of preferring the appeal also, no prayer was made by the present petitioners for granting interim relief in a form of status quo. It is further submitted that, thereafter, at the time of preferring the appeal also, no prayer was made by the present petitioners for granting interim relief in a form of status quo. That for the first time, this application was submitted by the present petitioners in their appeal before the District Court for granting interim relief in a form of status quo. It is further submitted that there is no substance in the application preferred by the present petitioners before the District Court and their appeal. That, the learned District Court has rightly dismissed the prayer made by the present petitioner and no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (1) SCC 656 , 2009 (7) SCC 363 , 2017 (15) SCC 316 , 2021 (3) GLH 105 and 2017 (14) SCC 722 . Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondents to dismiss the present petition. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and documents produced on record, it appears that the facts of filing two different suits by the plaintiff against the defendants/present petitioners, both the suits were consolidated by the court below and common evidence was recorded as per the issue framed vide Exh. 29 by the trial court. As per the submissions of the present petitioners that the suit property was purchased by them from the original defendant No.1 through his power of attorney defendant No.2 by registered sale deed. It appears from the record produced before the Court that the plaintiff filed an application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 praying for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The said application preferred by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009. It also appears that in Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2009, the plaintiff filed application Exh.5 as well as Exh.12 praying for interim injunction against the defendant (present petitioners), which were also rejected by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 20.10.2009. It also appears that in Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2009, the plaintiff filed application Exh.5 as well as Exh.12 praying for interim injunction against the defendant (present petitioners), which were also rejected by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 20.10.2009. It is not in dispute that against the said order, Appeal From Order No.69 of 2009 was preferred before the learned Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha by the original plaintiff/respondent in which by judgment and order dated 14.12.2010, order of status quo was passed and appeal was disposed of. It would be necessary to observe the order passed by the leaned 2nd Additional District Judge, Himmatnagar dated 14.12.2010 in Civil Appeal From Order No.67 of 2009. As per the observations made by the court below, respondent nos.2 to 7 (present petitioners) were in possession of the suit property being bona fide purchasers, and therefore, it was opined by the learned Additional District Judge that if the status quo would be maintained by the present petitioners in respect of the suit property till final disposal of the suit, there would be no prejudice or damage likely to be caused to the either side, and therefore, the order passed below Exh. 5 and Exh.12 in Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2009 dated 26.10.2009 was quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 (present petitioners) were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till final disposal of the Civil Suit as they were in possession of the suit property vide order dated 14.12.2010. Both the suits were decided by the trial court on 24.03.2021 till the status quo granted by the learned Additional District Court in Civil Appeal From Order No.67 of 2009 was continued. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 24.03.2021 in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2021 preferred by the present petitioners. The question of plaintiff has not stepped into witness box, and therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the court below while passing the decree would be a subject matter before the District Court in the appeal preferred by the present petitioners in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2021. The question of plaintiff has not stepped into witness box, and therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the court below while passing the decree would be a subject matter before the District Court in the appeal preferred by the present petitioners in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2021. Another question of power of attorney duly notarized before the Executive Magistrate as well as original plaintiff accepted the consideration at relevant point of time by executing Kabulatnama/Memorandum of Understanding about the acceptance of consideration and thereafter, power of attorney was executed and the sale deed would also consider in the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, which are pending before the trial court. 9. Admittedly, till final disposal of both the civil suits decided on 24.03.2021 status quo was maintained by the either side. It is true that at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, no specific application was given by the present petitioners to maintain the status quo for praying any interim relief. It is also admitted facts that while preferring Regular Civil Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2021 by the present petitioners, no such relief was prayed by the petitioners, but thereafter filing of the different application, interim relief was prayed by the petitioner, which was rejected by the trial court. 10. This Court in the case of Bhanubhai Mohanlal Bhatt and Another versus M/s Vinayak Developer, Bhuj, through its partners reported in 1996 (1) GLH (U.J.) 28, held that when the appellate court dealing with Appeal, from Order finds that no case is made out for the grant of interim relief, it must immediately set down the appeal for hearing and decide it with application for interim injunction. It was further held that the very ground which convinced the learned Judge to reject the application would be the ground to reject the appeal. The course adopted by the learned Judge rendered in meaningless, serious note was taken by this Court of repeating exercise of powers by the learned Judge. 11. In a case cited in 2012 (1) SCC 656 , referring Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act it was held that it makes clear “ that a contract of sale, that is an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 12. 11. In a case cited in 2012 (1) SCC 656 , referring Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act it was held that it makes clear “ that a contract of sale, that is an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 12. In a case cited in 2009 (7) SCC 363 , Hon'ble Apex Court opined that “practice of executing transfer of property through sale agreement, general power of attorney, will rather than executing and registering deed of conveyance resulting into that evasion, loss of revenue, concealment of black money etc., such practice was deprecated by the Court. 13. In a case cited in 2017 (15) SCC 316 , it was held that “immovable property can be transferred only by a registered instrument and there can be no transfer of any right, title or interest in any immovable property except by way of a registered document. 14. In a case cited in 2021 (3) GLH 105, it was held that “supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined only to see whether subordinate court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of record, much less, an error of law. High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and has only to see that an inferior court has to function within the limits of its authorities. When a subordinate Court has arrived at a view which is a possible view, even if a different view is possible, High Court will not , in exercise of powers under Article 227 correct such order. Powers under Article 227 has to be exercised sparingly on equitable principle. 15. In a case cited in 2017 (14) SCC 722 , it was held that “a judicial decision containing the principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendli. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue which cannot be a precedent. Any reasons assigned in support of such final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative and any interim directions issued on the basis of such findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infrucutuous or a fail before the final hearing. 16. Any reasons assigned in support of such final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative and any interim directions issued on the basis of such findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infrucutuous or a fail before the final hearing. 16. The ratio and judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents are certainly considered by this Court and applicable to this court also. 17. Considering the issue involved in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2021 preferred by the present petitioners as well as the issue of power of attorney executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 and agreement to sale executed in favour of the present petitioners, status quo granted by the learned Additional District judge, Idar in Civil Appeal From Order No.67 of 2009 on 14.12.2010, which was continued till final disposal of the Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 vide judgment and decree passed on 24.03.2021, this Court is of the considered view that there would be no prejudice or any injustice likely to be caused to the respondent, if the status quo granted as prayed for by the petitioners would cause any injustice to the respondents. Hence, these petitions are hereby allowed. 18. The order dated 17.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha below Exh.6 and 14 in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2021 as well as below Exh.7 and 15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2021 stand quashed and set aside. The prayer made by the present petitioners in their application shall be granted till final disposal of their appeal i.e. Regular Civil appeal Nos.4 and 5 of 2021 pending before the First Appellate Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.