ORDER : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tattvam K. Patel learned advocate and Mr.Nisarg Raval learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that an agreement to sell was executed by Dilipbhai Bhaktidas Doshi – original plaintiff and respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. As the agreement to sell was not acted upon, suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.07.2005 was filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3; however, the suit came to be dismissed and the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2023 is filed and pending before the Court below. The parties have agreed to maintain status-quo and upon purshis being filed, the Court below has passed an order dated 08.04.2023, directing parties to maintain status quo with respect to land bearing Old Survey No.60, Block No.51, situated at village Khanpur, District – Vadodara admeasuring 6677 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”). Moreover, there was a power of attorney executed in favour of defendant No.5. Clearly, all the rights were conferred upon the power of attorney holder, viz. to execute the sale deed; sign the sale deed and to present the sale deed before the office of the Sub-Registrar etc. The power of attorney holder, had secured the power to receive the consideration as well and power to sale, would include the power to handover the possession and to deal with the land. Thus, registered sale deed dated 6.5.2009 was executed in favour of applicant – appellant. The amount of consideration fixed was Rs.1,33,54,000/-, and the sale deed records the receipt of the cheques and the amount. 1.1 It is submitted that the plaintiff, thereafter, had filed the suit challenging the sale deed executed in favour of applicant – appellant. During the pendency of the suit, confirmation deed came to be executed on 12.3.2010 wherein, receipt of amount as indicated in Para.2 of the sale deed has been acknowledged and it also confirms execution of the sale deed in favour of applicant - appellant. In Para.3 of the confirmation deed, the plaintiff confirms about the receipt of the amount. As indicated therein, it also recognizes the payment by applicant – appellant, and treating the same as consideration. In Para.3 of the confirmation deed, the plaintiff confirms about the receipt of the amount. As indicated therein, it also recognizes the payment by applicant – appellant, and treating the same as consideration. It is submitted that the confirmation deed was subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Suit No.614 of 2013 which came to be allowed, declaring the confirmation deed as null and void; with an exception that the same, shall not be applicable to the legal proceedings. Hence, the confirmation deed, can very well be relied upon. 1.2 It is further submitted that the plaintiff, had filed a complaint dated 13.8.2010 with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. If one peruses the contents of the complaint, it confirms the fact that confirmation deed has been executed by him in favour of the applicant – appellant. Para.12 of the complaint, substantiates the said aspect. It is not in dispute that the complaint is accompanied by the verification which is on oath and hence, the challenge to the confirmation deed was nothing but an afterthought. It is also submitted that the suit filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 against the plaintiff, was nothing but a collusive one and only with a view to seeing that the rights in favour of applicant – appellant are nullified. It is also submitted that the confirmation deed was executed in the year 2010 whereas, the suit challenging the confirmation deed, has been filed in the year 2013. Therefore, the same also raises a doubt as to why and how the plaintiff, waited for almost the period of 3 years. 1.3 It is next submitted that the findings of the learned Judge as to the confirmation deed, are totally perverse inasmuch as, in the complaint registered, there is almost acceptance by the plaintiff about execution of the confirmation deed. The learned Judge ought not to have given its finding in connection with the complaint. It is also submitted that it was never the case of either of the parties about retaining the copy of the complaint and/or procuring the copy on the third day of filing of the complaint. 1.4 It is submitted that all throughout, there was status-quo operative. It is also submitted that it was never the case of either of the parties about retaining the copy of the complaint and/or procuring the copy on the third day of filing of the complaint. 1.4 It is submitted that all throughout, there was status-quo operative. In the Special Civil Suit filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3, there was a stay granted which continued and in the appeal filed, the parties, have agreed for extension of the stay till the final disposal of the appeal. It is, therefore, urged that the status-quo, be allowed in the facts of the case. 2. On the other hand, Mr.Apurva Vakil learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, submitted that the transaction executed on the basis of the power of attorney, itself, does not give any right inasmuch as, the power was limited; however, misusing the power of attorney, the defendant No.5 executed the sale deed in favour of applicant – appellant which led to the filing of the complaints and steps were taken for cancellation of the sale deed and the power of attorney. It is submitted that the amount which has been indicated in the sale deed has never come to the plaintiff. Even the cheques referred to in the confirmation deed, have never been received by the plaintiff; which aspect, is not in dispute inasmuch as, as per the intimation provided by the concerned bank i.e. Standard Chartered Bank, the amount of the cheque for Rs.55 lakhs is not found in the account statement for the period from 1.5.2009 to 4.7.2013. Similarly, the cheque No.424949 for Rs.28,55,000/-, entry whereof, dated 25.6.2009 i.e. is much beyond the date of the sale deed and hence, the consideration stated to be paid, has never been paid to the plaintiff. 2.1 It is also submitted that as the power of attorney was misused that the complaints have been filed against the defendant No.5 and the applicant – appellant. Also, there is a magistrate complaint filed for the offences under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468 and others against the defendant No.5. It is, therefore, submitted that when the confirmation deed was subject matter of challenge and the suit, has been allowed and when there is no stay granted, the confirmation deed cannot be relied upon for the purpose of consideration of the captioned appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that when the confirmation deed was subject matter of challenge and the suit, has been allowed and when there is no stay granted, the confirmation deed cannot be relied upon for the purpose of consideration of the captioned appeal. It is submitted that the impugned judgment, was passed somewhere in the month of April, 2023; however, for almost 2 years, there was no stay operating. Without prejudice, it is submitted that this Court, if were to accede to the request, then the market value of the land in question may be considered as Rs.2.50 crores and not Rs.1.33 crores. 3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. Center to the issue, is the land in question. From the record, it emerges that an agreement to sell was executed dated 28.7.2005 by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Special Civil Suit No.67 of 2009 was filed against the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the Banakhat – agreement to sell dated 28.7.2005. Together with the suit, application Exh.5 was filed seeking temporary injunction and vide order dated 5.2.2009, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge granted ad-interim injunction in terms of Para.12(1) and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were restrained from disturbing the possession of the land in question, so also not to transfer it. It is also not in dispute that the said interim injunction continued from time to time. Suit came to be decreed against which, the defendant Nos.2 and 3, have preferred the Civil Appeal No.57 of 2023 wherein, a purshis was filed and the parties, agreed to maintain status quo including the plaintiff. The learned 8 th Additional District Judge has passed an order which reads, thus : “ Order below Exhibit-5 1. The learned advocates for the parties are present. The learned advocates for the parties have stated before this Court that the parties have agreed upon to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land till final disposal of the appeal. A joint pursis to this effect has also been filed at Exhibit 12. 2. The learned advocates for the parties have jointly requested to pass order of status quo in view of the pursis. 3. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER 1. The parties to the proceedings to maintain status quo in terms of the pursis at Exhibit 12 till disposal of the appeal. 2. The learned advocates for the parties have jointly requested to pass order of status quo in view of the pursis. 3. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER 1. The parties to the proceedings to maintain status quo in terms of the pursis at Exhibit 12 till disposal of the appeal. 2. The application stands disposed of accordingly.” 5. Adverting to the confirmation deed dated 15.3.2010 executed by the plaintiff, pertinently it was subject matter of challenge by way of filing a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.614 of 2013 which came to be allowed and the confirmation deed has been declared as null and void; however, with an exception of using it in the legal proceedings. Against the judgment dated 1.4.2023 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.614 of 2013, Regular Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2023 has been filed before the District Court, Vadodara and the same is pending. 6. Captioned proceeding is arising out of the challenge to the sale deed dated 6.5.2009 executed by the power of attorney holder - defendant No.5 in favour of the applicant - appellant for which, consideration as indicated in Par.3 has been paid; some through cheque and some by way of cash. Against the said power of attorney, the plaintiff has registered an F.I.R. with the Vadodara City Police Station for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and appears to have been pending. Similarly, a complaint has been filed with the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Para.12 of the complaint reflects about the understanding between the plaintiff and the applicant - appellant. Execution of the confirmation deed is acknowledged by the plaintiff. The said complaint is on oath which aspect, is strengthened by the verification below the complaint. 7. Therefore, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, there is no reason to disbelieve the contents of the complaint filed by the plaintiff with the Court concerned. Perusal of the contents of the confirmation deed, suggest the understanding between the parties to the effect that the applicant - appellant has paid consideration to the plaintiff. Para.2 indicates about the consideration. However, there is some dispute about the receipt of the said amount in the account of the plaintiff. Perusal of the contents of the confirmation deed, suggest the understanding between the parties to the effect that the applicant - appellant has paid consideration to the plaintiff. Para.2 indicates about the consideration. However, there is some dispute about the receipt of the said amount in the account of the plaintiff. Even if one goes by the contents of Para.3 of the confirmation deed, it was agreed between the parties that since the amount of sale consideration has been received, the plaintiff, would not like to continue with the disputes between the parties. The sale deed dated 6.5.2009 has been accepted. 8. Appeal, requires consideration. 9. Hence, ADMIT . Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.1. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023 1. Heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Tattvam K. Patel learned advocate and Mr.Nisarg Raval learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. In view of the above discussion, issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 24.2.2025. Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. The parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the land in question. 3. At this stage, Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned advocate submitted that though amount included in the sale deed was Rs.1.33 Crores, during the proceedings, it has come out that the value of the land, is Rs.2.50 Crores, hence, the applicant - appellant be directed to deposit the same. Mr. Tattvam Patel, learned advocate states that the amount shall be deposited within two weeks i.e. by 17.02.2025. 4. Let the amount be deposited by 17.02.2025 with the registry of this Court.