ORDER : HIMANSHU JOSHI, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 (R) of the CPC against the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by learned 9" District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.A/12/2025 whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, stating therein that Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior, under the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff No. 2 is the Director of the said Signature Not Verified company. Plaintiff No. 2 was authorized by a resolution dated 26.11.2024 to file the civil suit. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased agricultural land located in Village Bilkiriya Khurd, Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal (M.P.) on 10.09.2024 through various sale deeds. The details of the purchased land are as follows:- Khasra No. 80/2 out of 1.61 hectares, 1.6045 hectares. Khasra No. 92/1 out of 0.3900 hectares, 0.3845 hectares. Khasra No. 92/2 measuring 2.0000 hectares. Khasra No. 92/3 measuring 1.0000 hectares. Khasra No. 96 measuring 1.0000 hectares. Thus, a total area of 5.9890 hectares, which is 14.79 acres, situated in village Bilkhariya Khurd, Patwari Halka No. 26, Revenue Inspector Mandal-3, Development Block, Fanda, Ratanpur Road, Tehsil Kolar, District Bhopal. 3. The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1 in the suit) was a former employee of the company and Plaintiff No. 1 had granted limited authority to respondent No. 1 to execute the sale deed dated 10.09.2014 in respect of the suit properties. The reliefs prayed before the trial Court are as under:- 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction. In the application, the plaintiffs prayed that the defendants be restrained from creating any third-party right and from changing the nature of the suit property. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court by adopting erroneous reasoning. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court by adopting erroneous reasoning. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs, through their application, had made out a prima facie case in their favour, and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour for granting temporary injunction. It is contended by the counsel that if the disputed property is sold or transferred, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellants/plaintiffs. In light of the well-settled principles, the learned trial Court below ought to have allowed the application and Signature Not Verified restrained the defendants from altering or transferring the suit property belonging to the appellants/plaintiffs. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants categorically argued that the company initially purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 10.09.2014 by authorizing respondent No. 1 to execute the same. From that date onward, respondent No. 1 had no right to alienate the suit property in favour of any other person. It is further submitted that defendant No. 1 resigned from the company and joined another company in the year 2017, which is evident from the affidavit placed on record. Despite being aware that he had been granted only limited authority for the purpose of purchasing the disputed property and he was no longer associated with the company, defendant No. 1 executed a Power of Attorney on 15.10.2024 in favour of defendant No. 2. On the basis of the said Power of Attorney, a sale deed dated 21.10.2024 was executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No.3. 7. It is contended by the counsel that the Power of Attorney dated 15.10.2024 and the sale deed dated 21.10.2024 are illegal, void, and unenforceable in law. It is further submitted that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application, despite the fact that it had come on record that the defendants could not have lawfully sold the disputed land, as it had been attached by the Income Tax Department Signature Not Verified since 2018. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mita India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mahendra Jain [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121]. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiffs have not filed a very important document i.e., the Authorization Letter issued in favour of defendant no.1 to show whether the defendant no.1 has right to sell the property or not. The said document is a very essential document to decide this matter. It is contended by the counsel that the trial Court did not commit error while dismissing the application for temporary injunction. It is further contended by the counsel that the learned trial Court after hearing rival submissions and considering the material brought on record found that the appellant could not make out a case for grant of temporary injunction, and therefore by the impugned order has rejected the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Thus, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Signature Not Verified Ponniamman Education Trust [ (2012) 8 SCC 706 ]. 11. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel and the respondent, and carefully perused the record and the impugned order 12. The suit file by the plaintiff is for grant of relief of declaration and temporary injunction. The suit has been filed alleging that the defendant no.1 has misused the Power of Attorney dated 10.09.2014 granted in his favour. It is also alleged in the suit that the defendant no.1 has executed another Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no.2 and the sale-deed in question has been executed. This Court has failed to understand why the Power of Attorney executed in the year 2014 in favour of defendant no.1 has not been brought in the light, neither in the suit nor before this Court. The reason for non-filing of the Power of Attorney created the doubt upon the intention of the plaintiff. This Court has failed to understand why the Power of Attorney executed in the year 2014 in favour of defendant no.1 has not been brought in the light, neither in the suit nor before this Court. The reason for non-filing of the Power of Attorney created the doubt upon the intention of the plaintiff. Another aspect of the matter is that, as per the averments in the suit, the so called Power of Attorney was executed in the year 2014 and the defendant no.1 has left the company in the year 2017. What circumstances have precluded the plaintiff's Company to cancel/recall the Power of Attorney during the period from 2014 upto 2024 in spite of the fact that the defendant no.1 has left the Company in the year 2017. 13. A perusal of the impugned order also reveals that while Signature Not Verified passing the order impugned the learned trial Court has also questioned the legality of the execution of the sale-deed dated 10.09.2014. In view of the above circumstance, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. 14. Injunction is a relief founded in equity. The power to grant or refuse an injunction essentially lies in the realm of discretion of the Court. This discretionary power has to be exercised with great care and caution. The principles for granting or refusing an injunction is well settled. The power conferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting or refusing temporary injunctions has to be exercised with proper reasoning and in accordance with settled judicial principles. An injunction is a judicial process where a party is required to either perform or refrain from performing a particular act. The party requesting the injunction must satisfy that a prima facie case is made out, the balance of convenience lies in their favour and they would suffer irreparable loss, if the injunction is not granted. 15. Prima facie, the appellants have failed to demonstrate the parameters for grant of temporary injunction, and the trial Court rightly refused to grant the same. 16. In view of above, I do not find that the findings recorded Signature Not Verified by the trial Court, while deciding the application for temporary injunction, to be vulnerable in any manner. 15. Prima facie, the appellants have failed to demonstrate the parameters for grant of temporary injunction, and the trial Court rightly refused to grant the same. 16. In view of above, I do not find that the findings recorded Signature Not Verified by the trial Court, while deciding the application for temporary injunction, to be vulnerable in any manner. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the controversy, as the same shall be adjudicated by the trial court during the course of the proceedings. 17. The decision as relied by the counsel for the appellants is of no assistance to the appellants. 18. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.