JUDGMENT : The above appeal is filed by the Appellant who is arrayed as Defendant No.6 in OS No.225/2021 challenging the order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5 in the said suit by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The Plaintiffs who are arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit in OS.No.225/2021 seeking for the following reliefs: "1) To pass the preliminary decree of partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ 1/6th share jointly in the suit schedule properties. (2) To send the decree to the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur for effecting the partition by deleting the name of the Defendants in the revenue records by adding the Plaintiff’s names. (3) To declare the Doc No.1336/21-22 dated: 12.06-2021 as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs and also mutation entries in the revenue records vide No.H11/15-16 dated: 30-09-2015. (4) Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted which deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, and Cost of the suit may be awarded, in the interest of justice." 4. The Defendant No.1 (Respondent No.3 herein) is the grand father of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No.2 (Respondent No.4 herein) and the father of the Plaintiffs are the sons of the Defendant No.1, Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 (Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 herein) are the daughters of the Defendant No.1. The father of the Plaintiffs died on 4.5.2021 leaving behind his wife (mother of the Plaintiffs) and the Plaintiffs as his successors. 5. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1 was their grand father and had acquired ancestral properties as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint through a partition amongst his two brothers and that they are the joint family properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 5. The Defendant No.1 being the Kartha of the family was managing the suit properties even during the lifetime of the father of the Plaintiffs and no legal partition took place between the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 5. Hence, the suit properties are the joint family properties having common ownership and common possession. The Defendant No.1 being the Kartha of the family was managing the suit properties even during the lifetime of the father of the Plaintiffs and no legal partition took place between the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 5. Hence, the suit properties are the joint family properties having common ownership and common possession. The Plaintiffs also state that the revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule properties are in the name of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the wife of the Defendant No.1; that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs or their mother have entered into an agreement to alienate the first item of the suit schedule properties to Defendant No.6 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company/Defendant No.6') and that the said agreement was made without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. After coming to know of the agreement, the mother of the Plaintiffs demanded partition and since the same was refused, the suit was filed. 6. Along with the plaint, inter alia, IA.No.2 was filed to restrain the Defendant No.2 from alienating the first item of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court vide order dated 3.9.2021 granted an ex-parte order of Temporary Injunction as prayed for in IA.No.2 and restrained the Defendant No.2 from alienating the first item of the suit schedule properties. 7. Upon service of notices, the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered appearance before the Trial Court through their Counsel and filed written statement, wherein, while admitting that the suit schedule properties were the ancestral properties of the Defendant No.1, they contend that there was an oral family partition between the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the father of the Plaintiffs in the year 2015; that in the said oral partition, an extent of 35 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.176 of Mallat village, Manvi Taluk (now Sirwar), Raichur District, fell to the share of the father of the Plaintiffs and the said property was deliberately not included in the schedule to the plaint; it is pursuant to the said oral partition that the said property has been mutated in the name of the father of the Plaintiffs; the father of the Plaintiffs had also availed a loan of a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/-; the first item of the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the Defendant No.2 and therefore, the said property was mutated in the name of the Defendant No.2 and hence, he sold the said property vide registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021 in favour of the Company, whereunder, he also parted with possession. Various other contentions were also taken in the written statement, which are not referred to herein since the same is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal. 8. The Defendant No.6 – Company also entered appearance before the Trial Court. 9. Subsequently, on 22.10.2021 the Plaintiffs filed IA.No.5 to restrain the Company from constructing any permanent structure in the first item of the suit schedule properties. IA.Nos.2 and 5 were heard together by the Trial Court and vide order dated 14.1.2022, both the said applications were allowed granting the reliefs as sought therein. 10. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5, the Company has filed the present appeal. Along with the present appeal the Appellant has also filed IA.No.2/2022 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with ten documents. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the documents produced along with the application are essential for proper adjudication of the dispute. That at the time of filing of objections to IA.No.5 before the Trial Court, the Counsel was under the belief that the documents were produced along with the objections, but it was found that the same were not filed due to some confusion. The documents not having been produced before the Trial Court and the written statement of the Company not having been filed, no prejudice or harm would be caused to the other side if production of the said documents is permitted in the present appeal. 11. Sri Shivananda Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Company strenuously contends that the Company was entrusted with the work of setting up of a Solar Park in the village Mallata of Raichur District for generation of 26 MW of electricity and the approximate cost of the project was Rs. 11. Sri Shivananda Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Company strenuously contends that the Company was entrusted with the work of setting up of a Solar Park in the village Mallata of Raichur District for generation of 26 MW of electricity and the approximate cost of the project was Rs. 146.00 crores; necessary sanctions and approvals were obtained by the Company from the Government of Karnataka and other statutory bodies and the project has been completed and provisional interconnection approval to charge to the 110 KV evacuation line and 14.25 MW Solar Power Plant has also been approved by the KPTCL (Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited), Bengaluru; the GESCOM (Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited) had also issued the Commissioning Certificate dated 20.11.2021; the inverter control room and solar modules for 8 MW are erected in the first item of the suit schedule properties which is the subject matter of the registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021; much prior to passing of the impugned order, the functioning part of the project for 14.25 MW was completed, approved and commissioned, which is forthcoming from the documents produced along with IA.No.2/2022; and prior to entering into registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021, the Company had issued a Public Notice by way of paper publication dated 19.2.2021 both in English and in Kannada daily Newspapers calling for objections from any person who has any right and the first item of the suit schedule properties has also been mentioned in the said public notice. 12. The learned Counsel further contends that it is the specific case of the Company that it has taken all necessary precautions before entering into the registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021 with the Defendant No.2, wherein it was also put in possession of the said property and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,54,17,400/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Only) was also paid to the said Defendant No.2 on the date of the Agreement itself. On the same day, the Defendant No.2 has also executed a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 18.6.2021; subsequently, by a registered Sale Deed dated 4.4.2022 the first item of the suit schedule properties has been absolutely conveyed in favour of the Company. 13. On the same day, the Defendant No.2 has also executed a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 18.6.2021; subsequently, by a registered Sale Deed dated 4.4.2022 the first item of the suit schedule properties has been absolutely conveyed in favour of the Company. 13. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further contends that having regard to the fact that the Company has already erected certain structures in the first item of the suit schedule properties as part of the larger project, regular maintenance work will have to be carried out to ensure the proper running of the project and the order dated 14.1.2022 passed by the Trial Court which is impugned in the present appeal comes in the way of the Company in carrying out the regular maintenance work which will also require carrying out construction work. The learned Counsel submits that the order impugned would come in the way of the Company in implementing the project; that the balance of inconvenience lies in favour of the Appellant and the Plaintiffs can be compensated. The learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kethaki v. Kamalamma and Ors., MANU/KA/3292/2020 (MFA No.914/2020 (CPC), DD 24.9.2020 and seeks for allowing of the present appeal and grant of reliefs mentioned therein. 14. Per contra, Sri Sachin Mahajan, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the essential case of the Plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties is not in dispute; that the plea of the Defendants 1 to 5 of oral partition is required to be proved during the course of trial; that the order passed on IA.No.2 has not been challenged; that in the absence of the Defendant No.2 who is the vendor of the Company being aggrieved by any order passed by the Trial Court, it is not open to the Company to challenge the order impugned dated 14.1.2022. 15. 15. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 detailing the sequence of dates and events leading to the filing of the suit, passing of the interim orders in the said suit and execution of the documents by Defendant No.2 in favour of the Company would contend that the Company has deliberately, knowing fully well about the pendency of the suit and the right asserted by the Plaintiffs, have executed the documents and carried out construction on first item of the suit schedule properties in violation of the Court Orders. Having done so, it is now not open to the Company to plead hardship by taking advantage of their own illegal actions. The learned Counsel further submits that IA.No.6 has been filed by the Plaintiffs for amendment of the suit to include the property in the suit schedule which has been referred to by the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in their written statement. He further submits that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 taking advantage of the death of the father of the Plaintiffs who was the sole care taker, have clandestinely alienated the family properties and appropriated the entire sale consideration to the detriment of the rights of the Plaintiffs. 16. The learned Counsel submits that the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and have also demonstrated that the balance of inconvenience and comparative hardship lie in their favour. The Trial Court having been convinced with the case put forth by the Plaintiffs, has granted an order of injunction which is a discretionary order and which ordinarily ought not to be interfered with in an appeal filed challenging the same. He further submits that, if the order impugned order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5 is set aside, irreparable injury will be caused to the Plaintiffs, as even during the pendency of the suit and the interim orders, the conduct of the Company in proceeding with its activities and construction only demonstrates that the rights of the Plaintiffs would be irreparably impaired. He places reliance on the following judgments: i) Surjit Singh and ors., v. Harbans Singh and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 135 (ii) Jehal Tanti and Ors., V. Nageshwar Singh (D) Thr. He places reliance on the following judgments: i) Surjit Singh and ors., v. Harbans Singh and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 135 (ii) Jehal Tanti and Ors., V. Nageshwar Singh (D) Thr. Lrs., AIR 2013 SC 2235 (iii) Shyam Sel and Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., AIR Online 2022 SC 350 (iv) Smt. Lalithakshi Annadanagouda v. Sadashivappa Basappa Patil & Anr., AIR 1984 KAR 74 Putting forth the aforesaid contentions, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 17. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions put forth by both the parties and have perused the entire material available on record. The questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether IA.No.2/2022 filed by the Appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is required to be allowed? (ii) Whether the order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5 by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with? 18. Vide IA.No.2/2022 the Appellant has produced various documents which are necessary for effective adjudication of the questions that arise for consideration in the present appeal and for understanding of the respective case of the parties. Hence, IA.No.2/2022 is allowed and the documents produced along with the said application are taken on record. Accordingly, the first question framed at para 17 above is answered in the affirmative. 19. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties have been inherited by the Defendant No.1. The Defendant Nos.1 to 5 also do not dispute the fact that the Plaintiffs have a right in the suit schedule properties. It is their categorical case that there was an oral partition in the year 2015 and pursuant to the same, the father of the Plaintiffs was allotted an extent of 35 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.176 of Mallat village, Manvi Taluk (now Sirwar), Raichur District; the revenue records of the said property were transferred in his name; he had also mortgaged the said property and availed a loan. It is their further case that the Defendant No.2 is solely entitled to the first item of the suit schedule properties and the revenue records stand in his name and he was thus entitled to deal with the same in any manner. 20. It is their further case that the Defendant No.2 is solely entitled to the first item of the suit schedule properties and the revenue records stand in his name and he was thus entitled to deal with the same in any manner. 20. It is to be noticed that the plea of oral partition as is contended by the Defendants Nos.1 to 5 in their written statement is required to be proved in the course of trial in accordance with law. Pending adjudication of the said issue, if the suit schedule properties are dealt with, the rights of the Plaintiffs would get adversely affected. 21. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the paper publication dated 19.2.2021 issued by the Company, they have entered into a registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021, whereunder, the Company was also put in possession of the property in question and they have paid the entire sale consideration in favour of the Defendant No.2. A registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 18.5.2021 was also executed on the said date. On 25.8.2021, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit in OS.No.225/2021. In the plaint, they specifically averred regarding alienation made by the Agreement dated 18.6.2021 and sought for suitable reliefs and as also filed interim applications to safeguard their rights. On 3.9.2021, the Trial Court granted an ex parte order of Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendant No.2 from alienating the first item of the suit schedule properties. Subsequently, notices were served on Defendant Nos.1 to 5 on 1.10.2021 and Defendant No.6 also entered appearance in the suit on 3.12.2021. The Defendants have opposed the reliefs sought for by the Plaintiffs in IA.Nos.2 and 5. On 14.1.2022, the Trial Court has allowed IA.Nos.2 and 5. When matters stood thus, on 4.4.2022 the Sale Deed was registered. 22. The manner in which the Sale Deed dated 4.4.2022 was registered is also interesting and is required to be noticed, inasmuch as, the registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021 was executed in favour of the Company represented by its authorized signatory Mr.Jandrajupalli Rajan Babu; the registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the Company which was represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Jandrajupalli Rajan Babu; the registered Sale Deed dated 4.4.2022 has been executed by the Defendant No.2 as Vendor represented by Mr. Jandrajupalli Rajan Babu; the registered Sale Deed dated 4.4.2022 has been executed by the Defendant No.2 as Vendor represented by Mr. Jandrajupalli Rajan Babu (in his individual capacity) representing himself to be duly authorized by the registered General Power of Attorney dated 18.6.2021 to represent the Vendor and the Company is represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Jandrajupalli Rajan Babu as the Vendee in the said Sale Deed. After the Sale Deed has been executed in the manner noticed above, that the present appeal has been filed on 12.7.2022. 23. The conduct of the Appellant/Company, as noticed above, is not entirely free from blemish. After the order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.Nos.2 and 5, the Company, rather than approaching the Courts of law for suitable relief, chooses to proceed with registration of the Sale Deed on 4.4.2022 and subsequently file the present appeal after a lapse of nearly 6 months. Reliance is placed by the Appellant on the communication dated 10.11.2021 issued by the KPTCL, whereunder, provisional interconnection approval to discharge the proposed 110 KV evacuation line and 14.25 MW Solar Power Plant of the Appellant, has been granted. It is also relevant to note that the Wheeling and Banking Agreement was executed by the Company with KPTCL and BESCOM (Bengalore Electricity Supply Company Limited) and GESCOM on 24.12.2021. Hence, it is clear that several documents executed by and/or in favour of the Company with regard to the commissioning of its project, are subsequent to the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. It is also relevant to note that as on the date of the suit, the Company was a mere agreement holder. 24. At this juncture, it is useful to notice the rights of an agreement holder. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TP Act') is extracted herein below for ready reference: "54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property." (emphasis supplied) 25. The scope and ambit of Section 54 of the TP Act came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 . After noticing all the relevant provisions pertaining to the said aspect of the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53-A of the TP Act). According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter." 26. It is clear from the aforementioned that by virtue of the registered Agreement of Sale dated 18.6.2021, the Company cannot claim any right, title or interest in the first item of the suit schedule properties. It is forthcoming from the sequence of events, as noticed above, that although Company was aware of the right asserted by the Plaintiffs in respect of the first item of the suit schedule properties, the Company proceeded to transact further with the land in question and proceeded with various acts in implementing the project undertaken by it. The Company having noticed the rights asserted ought to have taken sufficient steps to mitigate the risk. However, it has failed to do so. The Company having noticed the rights asserted ought to have taken sufficient steps to mitigate the risk. However, it has failed to do so. Various circumstances sought to be complained of by the Company, has been created by its own acts and it is now not open to the Company to rely on the said circumstances to seek for setting aside of the order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5. 27. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kethaki (supra), wherein this Court had applied the principle as set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ECE Industries Ltd., v. S.P.Real Estate Developers Private Limited and Anr., (2009) 12 SCC 776 and has held as follows: "11. Even accepting for a moment the submission of the learned counsel for appellant, that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie for decreeing the suit, the plaintiff must establish that if defendants No.9 and 10 are unless restrained forthwith by a temporary injunction, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury or such injury as would render his success in the suit totally nugatory and infructuous. The interest of plaintiff can be protected by directing defendants No.9 and 10 to handover the vacant possession of the 'B' schedule property along with the improvement made in the event the suit is decreed." 28. The judgment of this Court in Kethaki's case (suprea) will not come to the aid of the Appellant, inasmuch as, in the said case, a suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession as also a mandatory injunction for demolition of the illegal construction. In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was filed to restrain the Defendants from putting up further construction. The Trial Court had rejected the said interim application. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the interim application before the Trial Court, notwithstanding the contention of the Defendants that their construction was perfectly legal, the contesting Defendants had filed an undertaking before the Trial Court that they will not claim any equity in the event the Plaintiffs succeed in the suit regarding the improvement made in the property and also that they will not alienate the property. It is in the peculiar facts of the said case that, the Trial Court has refused to exercise discretion in favour of the Plaintiffs which discretion was not interfered with by this Court. The facts in the case of Kethaki (supra) are completely different from the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the Company has not filed any undertaking as was done in the case of Kethaki (supra). Also, this Court having regard to the scope of appellate power in interference with a discretionary order did not interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court in the said case. 29. With regard to the scope of interference by the Appellate Court with exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in passing the orders of injunction, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the case of Shyam Sel and Power Limited (supra) and Smt Lalithakshi Annadanagouda (supra) are squarely applicable. It is settled law that the Appellate Court would not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court if the same is made in a reasonable and judicious manner. The scope of interference of the Appellate Court in discretion exercised by the Trial Court in matters of grant or refusal of injunction is limited to orders which are found to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P.Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 has held as follows: "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge, In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. ………. " The Principle of law as laid down in the case of Wander Ltd (supra) has been repeatedly re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. 30. In the case of Jehal Tanti (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing Section 23 of the India Contract Act, 1872, has held that a Sale Deed executed in the teeth of an order of injunction passed by the Trial Court is unlawful thereby being violative of Section 23. 31. In the case of Surjit Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "3. …………… When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seizin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. ……………." (emphasis supplied) 32. In view of the law as laid down in the case of Jehal Tanti (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra) and the Sale Deed having been registered when the order of injunction was in force, as well as the manner in which the Sale Deed was registered on 4.4.2022 as noticed in para 22 hereinabove, the Company cannot derive any benefit from the Sale Deed dated 4.4.2022. 33. 33. Having regard to what is stated above, the Trial Court vide its order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5 has, in detail noticed the case put forth by the Plaintiffs and Defendants and has recorded the following finding: "……… Besides the same at this stage it cannot be concluded that there was a partition between the father of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 5 in respect of the suit properties. The said aspect has to be decided only at full fledged trial. It is well established possession of law that the stranger cannot come in joint possession. Moreover mere availment of loan by the father of the Plaintiffs does not establish factum of partition. Therefore, the defendant No.6 being stranger cannot be allowed to proceed with the construction work unless it is established in trial that the suit properties including Sy No.93 have been partitioned. ……" 34. The Trial Court after noticing the case of the parties, has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and also held that it is Plaintiffs who will be put to loss and hardship in getting their share, if the Defendant No.6 proceeds with the construction work and the balance of convenience lies more in favour of the Plaintiffs as compared to Defendant No.6 – Company. The Appellant – Defendant No.6 has failed in demonstrating as to how the finding recorded by the Trial Court is illegal or perverse and requires interference in this appeal. No case is made out to warrant interference with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in its order dated 14.1.2022 passed on IA.No.5. 35. Having regard to the foregoing, the second question framed at para 17 above is answered in the negative. 36. Under the circumstances, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, IA.No.3/2022 does not survive for consdieration. No costs.