ORDER : 1. Appellant/plaintiff has filed this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.9.2020 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.1-A/2019, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that appellant/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. After hearing both the parties, trial Court has rejected the application by passing impugned order. Hence appellant has filed this miscellaneous appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial Court has erred in not considering that appellant has executed the power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 and on that basis they have purchased the suit property but after obtaining the power of attorney, respondent No.1 has misused it and he has alienated the suit property to his family members-respondents No.2 to 5. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also in favour of the appellant. The impugned order passed by the court below is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. Hence he has prayed that impugned order be set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff be allowed and temporary injunction be issued against the respondents. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that impugned order passed by the court below is just and proper and the trial Court has passed detailed order after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is required. 5. Both the parties are heard at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the parties. 6. 5. Both the parties are heard at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the parties. 6. After perusal of the record filed by both the parties, it appears that admittedly appellant/plaintiff along with the respondent No.6/defendant Manoharlal jointly purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No.1273/2 area 0.186 Aare and Survey No.1263/2 Rakba 0.140 Aare through registered sale deeds in the year 1991 and they have executed power of attorney in favour of the respondent/defendant No.1 Laxminarayan, who has sold the suit land along with other land to the various purchasers on the basis of said power of attorney. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.1 has misused the liberty given to him and he has sold out certain land to his own wife, daughter and other relatives. 8. In reply, contention of respondent No.1 is that he has sold out the suit property as per the instructions of petitioner in exercise of the power given to him through registered power of attorney. It appears that there is a dispute between both the parties regarding the account of money of the sold property. Although petitioner and respondent No.6 are the registered owner of the suit property and they did not want to continue the respondent No.1 as their power of attorney. It is also alleged that despite of the instructions given by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is regularly alienating and creating third party right over the suit property. 9. It is true that the civil court has power to issue temporary injunction restraining an attemptted alienation of suit property by either party. Merely because Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the interest of the complaining party by providing that an alienation lis pendens shall be subject to the result of the suit but that does not mean that civil court does not have power to issue an injunction. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vs. Babulal reported in 1991 MPLJ 480 has held as under:- “10. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vs. Babulal reported in 1991 MPLJ 480 has held as under:- “10. In the opinion of this Court, the matter as to the grant of a temporary injunction restraining alienation is governed by the same principles as are applicable to the grant of prayer for temporary injunction of any other nature, such as one restraining waste or damage to the suit property or dispossession of the plaintiff with the only distinction that consideration of the doctrine of lis pendens as affording protection the aggrieved party has also to be kept in view. The Division Bench in Jamnabai's case (supra), quoted with approval the view of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Man Mohinee Dossee v. Ichamoyee Dossee, 13 Sutherland's Weekly Reporter (Civil Rulings) 60, wherein the Court exercising the power of issuing injunctions and appointing receiver pendente lite has been cautioned to act most cautiously. Paramount consideration is to see whether the property in the suit required to be retained in existing condition and the attempted alienation, if not restrained, would cause the danger of the property in suit being destroyed, damaged or put beyond the reach of the Court. In Sitaram's case (supra), it has been said in para 20 : "... it is a matter of discretion, whether an injunction will or will not be granted. But the manner of exercise of that discretion depends upon the precise nature of the particular right, which is sought to protect and upon all the other material circumstances. An application for an injunction is an appeal to the extraordinary power of the Court and the plaintiff is bound to make out the case showing a clear necessity for its exercise, it being the duty of the Court rather to protect acknowledged rights than to establish new and doubtful ones." 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Julien Educational Trust Vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy and others reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2180 has held that since the suit for specific performance is pending before the trial Court, we can consider the materials before us and the arguments advanced only for the limited purpose for deciding the question of granting interim orders during the pendency of the suit. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust Vs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust Vs. Baldev Dass reported in AIR 2005 SC 104 has held that:- “Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled property to better use. We do not think in the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature of property by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be the condition on which the same is done. In the event of the appellant's claim being found baseless ultimately, it is always open to the respondent to claim damages or, in an appropriate case, the court may itself award damages for the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored. The appeal is allowed.” 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221 , wherein it has been held that : - “20. The appeal is allowed.” 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 221 , wherein it has been held that : - “20. In a situation where the learned Trial Court on a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious doubt, the Appellate Court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons that weighed with the learned Trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The Appellate Court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order. While we must not be understood to have said that the Appellate Court was wrong in its conclusions what is sought to be emphasized is that as long as the view of the Trial Court was a possible view the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the same following the virtually settled principles of law in this regard as laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727).” 12. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that suit property is being continuously alienated without the consent of the petitioner/plaintiff, therefore, an interim order is required to be passed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property during the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant because being a registered owner of the suit property, prima facie case is found in favour of the appellant. On the same grounds balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss is also found in favour of the appellant. On the same grounds balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss is also found in favour of the appellant. But the trial Court has not considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases which are cited before it, hence the trial Court has failed in discharging its duty. It is the duty of the trial Court to apply its mind to the facts of the case and take into consideration all the relevant principles of law. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.9.2020 is hereby set aside and it is directed that respondents shall not alienate or encumber the suit property or create any third party right over the suit property till the final disposal of the civil suit pending before the trial Court. 14. It is made clear that the observation made in this order have been made only for the purpose of disposal of this miscellaneous appeal and the same shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the suit. No order as to the cost. C.C. as per rules.