JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant Smt. Purushottam Devi assailing the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2022 (N.C.V. No. 215/2021) whereby the learned Court below allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The learned Court below after considering the rival submissions has recorded an affirmative finding that respondent-plaintiff has proved the existence of a prima-facie case in his favour and further, he has been able to prove two other necessary ingredients required for grant of temporary injunction namely balance of convenience and irreparable loss. With this conclusion, the learned Court below has granted indulgence to the respondent-plaintiff and has passed the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds in this appeal, which are reproduced as under: (i) That the learned trial court has gravelly erred in law as well as in facts in passing the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 against the appellant and in allowing the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs. It is most respectfully submitted that learned trial court has failed to appreciate and consider the legal principles in deciding the temporary injunction application. The order impugned being passed in violation of settled legal principles could not sustain. Hence, on this count the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That at the very outset, it may be submitted that the respondents/plaintiff's have come up with a specific case before the learned trial court in their suit that Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma has executed alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 in their favour and they claimed declaration on the basis of said Will against the humble appellant and other defendants. Further relief of injunction has also been claimed by the plaintiffs. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that admittedly, the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief of declaration regarding the Will executed by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma in favour of his wife the present appellant dated 15.01.2020. Further relief of injunction has also been claimed by the plaintiffs. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that admittedly, the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief of declaration regarding the Will executed by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma in favour of his wife the present appellant dated 15.01.2020. It was submitted before the learned trial court that there were no circumstances or reasons ever arose which can compel Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma to bequeathed his entire properties in favour of plaintiffs by executing the alleged Will dated 14.02.2017. A bare perusal of alleged Will itself reveals that same does not contain any whisper about the reason for not giving anything to rest of the family members of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. The plaintiffs are indisputably grandsons of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma and the entire family of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma consists of wife, sons and daughter. There is nothing in said Will about the reasons for debarring the wife, sons and daughter by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. This fact in particular casts huge and serious doubt upon the alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 and apparently the conduct of plaintiffs and proceedings initiated against them during the lifetime of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma itself shows that in no manner Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma can execute said Will in favour of plaintiffs. The learned Court below has completely overlooked this very aspect of the matter while passing the order impugned dated 25.02.2022 and restraining the humble appellant to enter and enjoy the suit property. Until and unless the plaintiffs does not succeeds in their claim the Will dated 15.01.2020 could not be doubted for any reasons and the Will of plaintiffs does not gain that much confidence using which the appellant can be restrained from entering in the suit property. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated on this count hence, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iii) That it would be relevant to submit here that it was categorically stated and pointed out on behalf of humble appellant before the learned trial court that she has already initiated the proceedings under the Act of 2007 before the learned S.D.M. Jodhpur regarding the suit property and the plaintiffs are intentionally avoiding said proceedings and despite remain present in Court of learned S.D.M. they are not contesting those proceedings. Ultimately, the learned S.D.M. by noticing the conduct of plaintiffs has passed order and directed the concerned S.H.O. to arrange the entry of the appellant into the suit property and her use and occupation in it. The Act of 2007 bars/prohibits the grant of any such injunction with regard to the suit property in favour of plaintiff's since the humble appellant has initiated the proceedings under said Act. The plaintiffs knowingly avoided the proceedings initiated by the appellant regarding the suit. property under the Act of 2007 and deprived her to enjoy the property which belongs to her husband and was bequeathed to her through Will dated 15.01.2020. The plaintiffs on the basis of alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 also even could not throw out the appellant who is indisputably the wife of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. The humble appellant has placed on record voluminous documentary evidence before the learned trial court perusal of which clearly shows the conduct and history about lifestyle of plaintiffs. The plaintiff no. 1 being of criminal nature is facing trial of a murder case and the proceedings initiated against him by the appellant regarding the fraud been played by him from the account of Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. The humble appellant has placed on record the documents pertaining to the bail application filed by him before the concerned trial court and before this Hon'ble Court which clearly shows that even this Hon'ble Court has prima-facie found the offence being committed by the plaintiff' no. 1 and directed him to first pay said amount of Rs. 4 Lacs to the appellant and then apply for the pre-arrest bail. The learned Court below has completely ignored all these aspects of the matter and restrained the senior citizen old day humble appellant from her legitimate right and the suit property. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated on these counts hence, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iv) That admittedly, the plaintiff's have not claimed any relief of declaration regarding the Will executed by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma in favour of his wife the present appellant dated 15.01.2020. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated on these counts hence, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iv) That admittedly, the plaintiff's have not claimed any relief of declaration regarding the Will executed by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma in favour of his wife the present appellant dated 15.01.2020. although various allegations have been leveled regarding said Will and all of those allegations are based upon the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur whereby the liberty has been granted to the appellant to avail appropriate remedy before competent Court to claim the relief prayed by her. It would be relevant to submit here that learned Tehsildar is having no authority under the law to examine the validity of Will or approve or discard the document like Will and only for the purposes of entering the mutation of concerned land can examine said document. The learned Tehsildar by passing order dated 15.07.2021 has expressed its opinion regarding the genuineness of Will dated 15.01.2020 and form a perverse opinion about it. The learned Tehsildar by exceeding the vested jurisdiction has opined in perverse and unjust manner against the Will of the appellant. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 being bereft of judicious considerations and has been passed by ignoring the settled legal principles deserves to be quashed and set aside. (v) That, the humble appellant by placing on record of the case the substantial evidence has exposed the conduct and approach of the plaintiffs. It would be relevant to submit here that if the plaintiff's were having any bona-fides about the alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 then they would have disclosed about it before the learned Tehsildar in those proceedings initiated by the appellant regarding her Will dated 15.01.2020. They have not made a whisper about it in said proceedings and this is sufficient enough to hold against them and make a prima-facie opinion regarding the genuineness of Will claimed by the plaintiffs. It was categorically submitted by the appellant before the learned trail court that plaintiffs have not come up with clean hands and the history of various ill-actions and violent steps taken by them against the appellant and even their father and sister also shows that claim set up by the plaintiff's is apparently not genuine and on the basis of false and fabricated document they have preferred the instant suit. The learned Court below by ignoring aforesaid material aspects of the matter proceeded to allow the temporary injunction application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and restrained the humble appellant from using her husband's property. In such old age the humble appellant has been thrown out on road from her husband's house which has been bequeathed to her by her husband by executing Will dated 15.01.2020 and she has been deprived to get shelter. The humble appellant has been compelled to live out of her husband's house and on mercy of her other sons and daughter. The appellant after been thrown out from the suit property by the plaintiffs is staying at agriculture land in kind of Dhani situated over agriculture land of her husband. The plaintiffs are even threatening her to dispossess from said land and they during the pendency of instant temporary injunction application before the learned trial court have already transferred part portion of said agriculture land to third party by executing sale deed in their favour. This fact was brought into the kind notice of learned trial court by placing on record the copy of said registered sale deed. The approach of over reaching, the process of Court by the plaintiffs is evident from record and plaintiffs with all oblique motives and ill-intentions are harassing their own grandmother in such old age. The learned Court below ought to have taken into consideration these glaring aspects of the matter while dealing with the matter but order impugned dated 25.02.2022 has been passed by overlooking them hence same stands vitiated which deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vi) That the learned Court below while considering the prima-facie case of the plaintiffs has relied upon the fact that they are in possession of suit property but learned Court has completely ignored from considering the important aspect of the matter that by forcibly throwing the appellant out of said property the plaintiffs are in occupation of said property. Even the learned Court below has recorded a perverse and arbitrary finding that appellant has not stated about the exact date when she has been dispossessed from the suit property but a bare perusal of averments made in Para No. 2 of preliminary objections made in reply filed by humble appellant would reveal that same clearly contains the exact date and details about said incident of throwing out the appellant. The conduct of the plaintiffs was of torturing and abusing the entire family members including Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma hence there was no occasion for Late Shri Nand Lalji to execute the alleged Will dated 14.02.2017 in favour of plaintiffs by excluding the other members of family. The learned Court below has further erred in coming to this conclusion that concerned Civil Court on 03.09.2021 has already passed interim injunction order in the matter hence said Court is not bound by orders passed by learned S.D.M. Court under the proceedings of Act of 2007. In this regard, with utmost respect it is submitted that a bare reading of Section 27 would reveal that no Civil Court would have jurisdiction to grant injunction in respect of any matter to which any provision of Act of 2007 applies. It further says that no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under the Act of 2007. So even if the learned Civil Court has granted injunction in the instant case on 03.09.2021 although it was in absence of humble appellant, then also as per the aforesaid legal provision the learned Civil Court could not grant injunction in respect of suit property to which provision of the Act of 2007 applies since humble appellant has applied under the said Act of 2007 before the learned S.D.M. Jodhpur. The learned trial court has fallen into serious error in not properly appreciating the legal provision and has ignored its applicability to the present case. The approach adopted by learned Court below has caused a grave failure of justice to the humble appellant. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated in this count hence same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) That the learned Court below has further fallen into grave error in recording the finding that prima-facie case exists in favour of plaintiffs. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated in this count hence same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (vii) That the learned Court below has further fallen into grave error in recording the finding that prima-facie case exists in favour of plaintiffs. In this regard, it would be relevant to submit here that learned Court below has although considered the aspect that plaintiffs are having their possession over the suit property and the Will dated 14.02.2017 in their favour but on the hand the humble appellant is also having the Will dated 15.01.2020 in her favour executed by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma during his lifetime and even appellant was also in possession of suit property till she has been thrown out by the plaintiffs. The reasoning given by learned trial court for recording finding that prima-facie case exists in favour of plaintiffs is contrary to the material and evidence available on record. The plaintiff's have admittedly not disclosed anything about their Will during the proceedings initiated by appellant before the learned Tehsildar with respect to her Will dated 15.01.2020 and after decision of those proceedings they come up with Will dated 14.02.2017. This very fact and conduct of plaintiff's is sufficient to hold against them and it could not be said that they are having any prima-facie case in their favour. The learned trial court has not only misread the available evidence but has also ignored from considering the substantial evidence produced on record by the appellant. The order impugned dated 25.02.2022 stands vitiated on the aforesaid counts hence same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The humble appellant could not be restrained under the law from taking possession of the suit property in view of order passed by learned S.D.M. in proceedings instituted under the Act of 2007. The learned trial court has bye-pass the legal provisions and proceeded to pass injunction order against the humble appellant in contravention of settled legal provisions. (viii) That the learned Court below has further committed serious error in recording the finding that balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs/respondents since if during the pendency of instant suit they would be forcibly dispossessed from the suit property then same would cause grave hardship to them. (viii) That the learned Court below has further committed serious error in recording the finding that balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs/respondents since if during the pendency of instant suit they would be forcibly dispossessed from the suit property then same would cause grave hardship to them. In this context, it would be appropriate to submit here that appellant by invoking the protection and measures available to her under the Act of 2007 have initiated proceedings before the learned S.D.M. regarding the suit property against the plaintiffs and learned Civil Court could not grant any kind of injunction regarding the suit property in favour of plaintiffs. If the appellant would be put in possession of suit property pursuant to the order passed by learned S.D.M. then there is no question of plaintiffs being forcibly dispossessed from the suit property and they would actually be dispossessed from the same in compliance of order passed by the competent authority having jurisdiction to pass such orders. By granting injunction in favour of plaintiffs regarding the suit property and against the humble appellant the learned Court below has put appellant to grave hardship and her valuable rights to peril. The appellant being of about 86 years age has been left to live on roads and out of her own house/property merely because the plaintiffs have instituted the instant suit before the learned trial court. This very approach of learned Court below has vitiated the very spirit of Act of 2007 and has caused a serious failure of justice to the humble appellant. The order impugned being passed with such approach deserves to be quashed and set aside. (ix) That the learned Court below has seriously fallen into grave error in not considering the irreparable loss and injury going to cause to the appellant on account of restraint injunction order passed against her. The appellant would be deprived from getting the relief and protection given to her under the Act of 2007 by the learned S.D.M. Jodhpur with regard to suit property and she would be compelled to stay out of her house on account of unlawful and illegal action of the plaintiffs. The learned Court below has actually given freehand to the plaintiffs and perpetuated the wrong committed by them against the old aged appellant. The learned Court below has actually given freehand to the plaintiffs and perpetuated the wrong committed by them against the old aged appellant. On account of passing of order impugned dated 25.02.2022 the humble appellant is facing grave irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated in any manner. The humble appellant has been compelled in such old age to live on roads and out of her husband's property due to wrong committed by the plaintiffs. The learned Court below has merely considered the irreparable injury from one angle Le about the plaintiffs whereas actual hardship is causing to the humble appellant who has been deprived from her property despite having the Will dated 15.01.2020 in her favour. The Will claimed by the plaintiffs is prima-facie false and fabricated document also for the reason that at the time of its execution Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma was admitted in Kamla Nagar Hospital and the attesting witness of said Will dated 14.02.2017 are not from the family of plaintiff's or Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma but actually they are persons belonging to plaintiff no. I and his wife. None of the attesting witness is belonging from the family of plaintiffs or defendants and said Will does not contain a single reason for excluding the other family members by Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma. There were ample reasons available on record which cats serious doubts upon the Will claimed by the plaintiffs but learned Court below by completely ignoring all these aspects of the matter has considered said forged and fabricated document dated 14.02.2017 to be prima-facie valid document in favour of plaintiffs. (x) That it would be relevant to submit here that learned Court below has wrongly found that all the necessary three ingredients for granting injunction exists in favour of plaintiffs. The claim set up by the plaintiffs is merely based upon a forged, concocted and fabricated document i.e. alleged Will which is apparently looking doubtful since same has been said to be executed during the time when the plaintiffs were not keeping cordial relations with Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma and his family members and they were actually harassing, brutally torturing and abusing them. There was no occasion lying for Late Shri Nand Lalji Sharma to ignore and discard the relationship with other family members and only pick and choose the plaintiffs who actually are of criminal state of mind having bad record, history and conduct. The learned Court below has although noticed all facts related to the conduct and approach of plaintiffs so also the criminal cases lodged against the plaintiff no, I despite that has believed upon the vague, concocted and false story created by the plaintiffs and treated the false and fabricated document of Will dated 14.02.2017 to be prima-facie genuine. The humble appellant has been compelled to face serious mental agony, hardship and inconvenience on account of passing order impugned dated 25.02.2022. The order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. (xi) That it would be relevant to submit here that even after passing of order impugned dated 25.02.2022 the plaintiff's have knowingly preferred appeal before the learned District Magistrate, Jodhpur against the judgment passed by learned S.D.M. Jodhpur dated 20.10.2021 whereby appellant has been awarded the possession of the suit property under the Act of 2007. It is well settled legal position that no appeal can lie against said judgment despite that simply to harass the humble appellant the plaintiffs have preferred said appeal and that to after filing it they have never appeared before said appellate authority on any of the subsequent dates of hearing. The said Appellate authority has recently rejected said appeal preferred by plaintiffs against said judgment dated 20.10.2021 passed by learned S.D.M. The learned S.D.M. has noted each and every conduct and approach adopted by the plaintiff's during those proceedings of harassing the humble appellant and after taking them into consideration by considering the pain and agony causing to the humble appellant has directed the concerned S.H.O. for making arrangements to hand over the possession of suit property to the appellant from the plaintiffs. The documents produced by the appellant before the learned Court below shows that plaintiffs are actually not residing over the address where suit property is but they are residing in area of Chopasani Housing Board which is evident from the anticipatory bail application preferred by plaintiff no. 1. The documents produced by the appellant before the learned Court below shows that plaintiffs are actually not residing over the address where suit property is but they are residing in area of Chopasani Housing Board which is evident from the anticipatory bail application preferred by plaintiff no. 1. With an intention to harass the old age lady like appellant they initially forcibly dispossess her from the suit property and then to claim undue advantage of showing their unlawful and illegal possession entered into the suit property. The learned trial court has ignored all these aspects of the matter which results into passing of such perverse, unjust, unlawful and arbitrary injunction order against the senior citizen like appellant. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents deserves dismissal and dismissal only. (xii) That it would be further relevant to submit here with utmost respect that a bare reading of impugned dated 25.02.2022 would reveal that same although runs in number of pages but most of the pages contains the discussion about the case laws cited on behalf of both the parties. No consideration whatsoever has been made with regard to the applicability of principles laid down in those case laws. The learned Judge has merely narrated about those case laws and without considering its applicability has passed the order impugned which could not sustain in the eyes of law. 4. Shri Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently and fervently submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the correct legal and factual aspect of the matter. He further reiterated the submission mentioned supra. 5. Per contra, Shri Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs submits that the learned Court below passed the order impugned after examining the matter meticulously and thereafter recorded an affirmative finding regarding existence of prima-facie case as well as availability of two other ingredients for grant of temporary injunction which is in fact, a just finding; warranting no interference in the limited scope of judicial review in this appeal. He further submits that in the given circumstances prima-facie it is reflecting that the Will in question alleged to be executed in favour of the appellant-defendant is a suspicious document. He further submits that in the given circumstances prima-facie it is reflecting that the Will in question alleged to be executed in favour of the appellant-defendant is a suspicious document. He drew attention of the Court towards the factual aspect that the executor of the Will was an old person of 90 years, ailing with several critical diseases and he remained in MG Hospital, Jodhpur from 22.12.2019 to 16.01.2020 and he died on 16.01.2020 and the Will alleged to have executed by him on a day before his death when he was taking his last breathe in Critical Care Unit of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Supplying emphasis on the dubious and fishy circumstances under which the will alleged to be executed in favour of the appellant-defendant, learned counsel further submitted that the issues in respect of the genuineness of the will in question can be ascertained after both the parties would adduced evidence in respect of their claims and that is why the learned Court below while considering it to be a contentious issue has recorded a finding about prima-facie case in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs which requires no interference. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant-defendant have not been able to show or cast any doubt over the will executed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and, therefore, the learned trial Court well within its prudence relying upon the will in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs exercised discretionary jurisdiction in their favour. Lastly, he submits that the scope of judicial review in an appeal against the order for temporary injunction is very much limited and the appellate Court is not obliged to re-evaluate or reassess the material placed on record and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the learned Court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a conclusion contrary to the taken by the Court below. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as well as the record received from the trial court along with documents submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. After careful examination of the material placed, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion quite judiciously and while exercising its jurisdiction, the learned trial Court has neither acted arbitrarily nor capriciously. After careful examination of the material placed, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion quite judiciously and while exercising its jurisdiction, the learned trial Court has neither acted arbitrarily nor capriciously. Apart from that, findings of the trial Court cannot be categorized as perverse in any manner and do not warrant interference of this Court in present appeal. The discretion exercised by the learned Court below in restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the property as well as restraining them from alienating the property in any manner does not seem to be arbitrary, patently illegal or beyond jurisdiction. 7. It is settled principle of law that scope of interference in an appeal under Order 43 against the interlocutory injunction is very much limited and appellate Court is expected to exercise such powers with great care and circumspection. The appeal against the interlocutory injunction is an appeal on principle as order granting or refusing injunction is within the sole discretion of the Court of the first instance and the appellate Court should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Court of the first instance unless it is shown that the discretion exercised by the Court below was arbitrary, patently illegal or beyond jurisdiction. 8. Thus, after viewing the case from all the angles and considering the submissions made at Bar, this court is not persuaded to interfere with the order impugned dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2022 (N.C.V. No. 215/2021). 9. Consequently, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.