IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain

High Court Appeal No.299 of 2021

APPELLANT: Asif Siddik Adam

through Ms. Mehreen Ibrahim, Advocate.

RESPONDENT NO.1&2 Siddiki Fund Trust & another

through Mr. Abdul Sattar Pirzada,

Advocate

RESPONDENT NO.3 Junaid G. Adam

through Mr. Kh. Shams-ul-Islam,

Advocate

Date of Hearing: 10.04.2023.

Date of Short Order: 10.04.2023.

O R D E R

AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J : - Instant High Court Appeal was filed against a short order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, on the original side, of this Court in Suit No.435 of 2019, whereby, CMA No.3564/2019 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC by the appellant has been dismissed through short order, however, without recording detailed reasons. According to learned counsel for the appellant, interim order was operating in the aforesaid suit to the effect that the respondents/defendants will not create any third party interest in the subject property, however, through impugned short order, such order has been recalled and the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed a suit seeking cancellation of Registered Sale Deed executed between the respondents No.2 and 3, who are father and son, and also trustees of Waqf-ul-Aulad Trust. The subject properties viz. Plot Nos.50/3, 50/2/1, 50/2/2/, 50/2/3 and 50/2/5 were amalgamated and renumbered and residential open plot No.50/3/1 measuring 5558.5 sq.yds. and Plot No.50/2/2, measuring 5558.5 sq.yds. total measuring 11,117 square yards, situated at Garden East Quarters, Karachi, which according to appellant, was a trust property, which could not be sold out without permission of the Court. Per learned counsel, respondents intend to raise multi-storey building on the trust property, and have applied for approval from the Sindh Building Control Authority and there is likelihood that in view of the short impugned order, they will start to raise construction on the trust property and will create third party interest and, therefore, the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents would become infructuous. It has been prayed that the operation of impugned short order may be suspended.

2. Since instant High Court Appeal was filed against a short order, whereas, the detailed reasons were not recorded, therefore, while issuing notice of instant High Court Appeal vide order dated 10.12.2021, it was observed that in the absence of detailed reasons legality or otherwise of the impugned order could not be examined. However, in view of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that since the injunction operating in favour of the appellant the suit has been vacated through short order, which has adversely affected the right and interest of the appellant, therefore, it was requested that notice of instant High Court Appeal may be issued to the respondents, while suspending the operation of the impugned order, and in the meanwhile, the appellant will place on record the detailed reasons as soon as the same are received from the Court. Accordingly, while issuing notices to the respondents, it was ordered that status quo shall be maintained in respect of the subject property till next date of hearing.

3. Pursuant to Court’s Notice, Mr. Abdul Sattar Pirzada, Advocate has shown appearance on behalf of the respondents No.1&2 and filed counter-affidavit to the memo of appeal alongwith counter-affidavit to CMA No.2391/2021 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC), whereas, Mr. Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam, Advocate has also shown appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the matter was heard at length on various dates of hearing, whereas, the relevant arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in respect of the subject controversy involved in the instant appeal can be summarized in the following terms:

4. Learned counsel for the appellant after having read out the impugned order has argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified to recall ad-interim order passed in favour of the appellant, as the appellant, who is plaintiff in the aforesaid suit seeking declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction, has successfully made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction in respect of the subject property, as according to learned counsel, subject property was part of the trust, therefore, could not be sold out. According to learned counsel for the appellant, while dismissing the injunction application learned Single Judge did not record any valid reasons while declining injunctive relief to the appellant, nor appreciated that if injunction is not granted in favour of the appellant, the purpose of filing the subject suit will be defeated, and in case third party interest in respect of the subject property is created, it will further complicate the issues involved between the parties to the suit, which will cause prejudice and injury to the claim of the appellant, which will not be compensated, if the appellant succeeds to obtain a favourable judgment and decree in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that grandfather of the appellant, namely, Haji Adam has created a fund in the year 1939, and established Waqf-ul-Aulad under the name of “Siddiqui Fund Trust” having different properties situated in India; thereafter, he migrated to Pakistan and established Waqf-ul-Aulad to continue trust deed in the year 1958, thereafter, according to appellant, Haji Adam passed away on 24.10.1957. According to learned counsel for the appellant, as per terms of Trust Deed the trust properties cannot be alienated or divided, however, defendant No.2 transferred his property in favour of defendant No.3 i.e. his son in violation of law and the terms of the trust deed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that terms of the trust also reflect that an orphanage centre has to be established, therefore, they shall be considered as created under the religious and charitable purposes, including benefits to legal heirs of Haji Adam. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 183 of the Muhammadan Law as well as Sections 203 and 204 and also relied upon in the case of HUSSAIN A. HAROON v. LAILA SARFRAZ (2003 CLC 771) and WAQF MUHAMMAD MEHER ELAHI (2014 MLD 1269) to the effect that Waqf properties vest in Allah and cannot be alienated and transferred, whereas, the doctrine of Cyprus relating to Court permission was also attracted in the instant case, however, this aspect of the matter, according to learned counsel, has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. While concluding her arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in respect of the subject properties till the decision in the aforesaid suit after recording evidence of the parties in accordance with law.

5. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and have also objected as to maintainability of instant appeal while submitting that the appellant having no prima facie case for seeking injunction in the subject suit, which according to learned counsel, is also misconceived and not maintainable, as the same has been filed without any cause of action or ground, whereas, according to learned counsel, declaration and cancellation of a registered documents has been sought by the appellant after expiry of period of limitation, whereas, no valid grounds or cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the main relief being sought by the appellant in the suit itself has no factual or legal basis, therefore, ad-interim relief sought by filing injunction application is equally misconceived and without any factual or legal basis. Per learned counsel, the learned Single Jude, after having examined all the material facts and record of the case, has been pleased to dismiss injunction application filed on behalf of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC (CMA No.3564/2019) while recording detailed reasons, whereas, learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to point out any factual error or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the injunction application. According to learned counsel for the respondents, appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and filed frivolous suit after having received his share out of sale proceeds of the subject properties, therefore, the appellant is otherwise estopped from agitating the validity of a registered document, including trust deed.

According to learned counsel for the respondents, it is specifically mentioned in the General Power of Attorney ("GPOA") that "We have executed this Power of Attorney for transfer of said plots in favour of Mr. Junaid G. Adam s/o Ghulam Ahmed Adam and/or his Nominee or Nominees. Due to unavoidable circumstances the parties of the first part are unable to utilize the said plots and as such they have agreed to transfer the said plots to one of the decedents of one of the Trustees of this Trust'. Furthermore, it is also mentioned in the GPOA that Respondent No. 2 was clearly and categorically conferred with the power, authority and discretion "to sell, mortgage, charge, encumber and to convey or transfer the said property by way of gift (whether Registered or Hiba Bilwa Ewaz as the case may be) or otherwise dispose off, in manner whatsoever with or without building structure thereon at such time in such manner for such consideration and to such person as my said Attorney may in his/her sole, absolute and unfettered discretion may deem, proper, desirable and for the purpose aforesaid to execute the necessary Deed of Deeds, Conveyance, Sale Gift, Lease, Mortgage, Transfer, Redemptions, Rectification, Relinquishment Deed... It is evident from a bare perusal of the GPOA that the Appellant personally appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Kemari Town, Karachi, for the execution of the same on 19.12.2014 and conferred Respondent No.2 with the authority to sell the Subject Property in favour of Respondent No.3.

According to learned counsel, the allegations and insinuations leveled by the Appellant in the instant appeal are embellishment of his imagination and bereft of any substance. A bare perusal of the GPOA clarifies that the Appellant personally appeared before the concerned Registrar for the execution of the same and conferred Respondent No.2 with the authority to sell the Subject Property in favour of Respondent No.3. It is submitted that the Subject Property was legally and lawfully sold and transferred by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.3, as it was vacant for last two decades and no income was being generated through the same. It was for this very reason that Respondent No. 1 resolved to sell the Subject Property. Per learned counsel for the respondents, upon receiving offers for the Subject Property from some builders, the same were matched by Respondent No. 3, who offered to buy the Subject Property at the same price and same terms and conditions as negotiated with the builders, and after consensus ad idem between all trustees and beneficiaries, including the Appellant, the Subject Property was sold to Respondent No. 3. In respect thereof, an Agreement of Sale dated 19.12.2014 was executed inter se Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 and the sale consideration was paid by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1 through a bankers cheque bearing No. PO.AAA12205790 drawn on Allied Bank, New Challi, Karachi. Thereafter, a Conveyance Deed was duly executed in respect of the Subject Property on 16.02.2015 (the 'Conveyance Deed'), which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jamshed Town, Karachi. It is imperative to point out that the respective shares of each beneficiary, including the Appellant, were distributed which was received by him on 17.12.2014 and an acknowledgment receipt was issued in respect thereof. Needless to say, that the Appellant accepted his share without any objection or complaint whatsoever and therefore, he is estopped by his conduct to seek any relief from this Court. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the Subject Property was legally and lawfully sold and transferred by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 3 as it remained unutilized and vacant for last two decades and no income was being generated through the same. It is pertinent to reiterate that the Appellant is estopped by his conduct to approach this Honourable Court in as much as he admittedly accepted his share from the proceeds derived from the sale of the Subject Property. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that Appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case, nor could establish that the balance of convenience is in his favour, and the Appellant will not suffer irreparable loss and injury, if injunctive relief is not granted to the Appellant as prayed. Per learned counsel, the Injunction Application filed in the subject suit was vexatious, baseless and contained ground, therefore, the same has been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge through well-reasoned order, which does not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity. It is submitted by the learned counsel that presumption of correctness is attached to a registered document that has been made and signed by the person executing it before the competent authority. Per learned counsel, a certificate of registration endorsed on a document is 'prima facie evident that the requirements provided under the law have been complied with and it is for the party who challenges the registration to prove any act or omission which would invalidate such registration. It is further contended that the Appellant has purportedly relied on forged and fabricated documents in respect of the supposed creation of Trust in Kathiawar on 16.01.1939. In the exigencies of the given circumstances, the contents of the said documents cannot be relied upon by the Appellant. Per learned counsel, the Injunction Application in the subject suit was filed in violation of the settled principle of law that "the power conferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is discretionary, the discretionary relief cannot be granted to parties approaching Court with unclean hands and ulterior motives". Per learned counsel, it is evident that from a bare perusal of the Memo of Appeal and the Plaint filed in the subject suit, the sole purpose, aim and objective of the Appellant in filing the Underlying Suit and the Injunction Application was to coerce, extort, intimidate and unlawfully compel the Respondents into surrendering to the unlawful, extortionate and ludicrous demands of the Appellant. According to learned counsel, the Subject Property was legally and lawfully sold and transferred by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.3. It is pertinent to reiterate that the Appellant is estopped by his conduct to approach this Honourable Court in as much as he admittedly accepted his share from the proceeds derived from the sale of the Subject Property. It is pertinent to submit that the Appellant accepted his share without any objection or irreparable loss, if injunctive relief will not be granted to the Appellant as prayed. Per learned counsel, the Injunction Application filed in the Suit was vexatious and accordingly dismissed by the Learned Single Judge. It goes without saying that the Appellant is estopped by his conduct to approach this Honourable Court in as much as he admittedly accepted his share from the proceeds derived from the sale of the Subject Property. It is pertinent to reiterate that the Appellant accepted his share without any objection or complaint whatsoever and as a consequence thereof, he is estopped from seeking any relief from this Honourable Court as no cause of action has accrued in his favour.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with their assistance and have also gone through the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No.435/2019 on CMA No.3564/2019 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC, whereby, the plaintiff’s injunction application seeking restraining order against raising of construction over the subject property, approval of building plan in respect of suit plot by the SBCA and dissolution of trust viz. Siddiki Fund Trust till final disposal of the suit, has been dismissed.

7. Perusal of the pleadings shows that the plaintiff in the suit, who claims to be grandson of Haji Adam, who created the Fund in the year 1939 and established Waqf-ul-Aulad under the name and style of Siddiqi Fund Trust, having different properties situated in India, who thereafter migrated to Pakistan and established Waqf-ul-Aulad in continuity of earlier trust deed, in the year 1957, thereafter, he passed away on 24.10.1957. According to the plaintiff, the trust properties could not be alienated or divided in view of the trust deed, however, the defendant No.2 in the suit transferred his properties in favour of the defendant No.3, his real son, therefore, it has been prayed that the plaintiff in the suit shall be joined as trustee after the death of the plaintiff’s father, who according to plaintiff, was one of the trustees of the defendant No.1 and consequently the suit for declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction has filed. Alongwith the suit, CMA No.3564/2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC has also been filed with the following prayers:-

"To permanently restrain defendants No. 1 to 5, their agents, representatives, attorneys or any persons. acting on their behalf from creating third party interest in respect of Plot Nos.50/3, 50/2/1, 50/2/2, 50/2/3 and 50/2/5 which were amalgamated and renumbered and measured as residential open plot Nos.50/3/! measuring 5558.5 square yards and 50/2/2 measuring 5558.5 square yards, total measuring 11117 square yards, situated at Garden East Quarters, Karachi. restraining defendant No.6 to approve the building plan in respect of above plot."

8. The learned Single Judge, after having examined the relevant facts as disclosed in the pleadings as well as the grounds agitated by the plaintiff by filing injunction application, has been pleased to observe that for the purpose of deciding an injunction application three factors are to be taken into consideration i.e. (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of inconvenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury and while placing reliance in the case of TERMINAL LTD. v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN [2004 SCMR 1092], wherein it has been held as under: -

"21. No doubt an injunction is a form of equitable relief and is to be issued in aid of equity and justice, but not to add injustice. For grant of such relief, it is mandatory to establish that in order to obtain an interim injunction, the applicant has not only to establish that he has a prima facie case, but he has also to show that the balance of convenience is on his side and that he would suffer irreparable injury/loss unless he is protected during the pendency of suit.”

It has been further observed that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has been further pleased to hold that all required ingredients i.e. (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of inconvenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury must be shown to be co-existing, whereas, reliance has been placed in the case of FEROZ ALI GABA v. FISHERMEN’S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & 2 OTHERS [2015 CLC 493], wherein, it has been held as under: -

“8. Before going any further on merits of the instant application (s), it would be just, proper and necessary to mention that an injunction is not to be granted where the party, claiming injunction, fails in establishing co-existence of all three required ingredients for grant of injunction which are 'prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss/ injury'. It is always necessary to give due meaning and weight to each ingredient because each is not simply a word but a circumstance showing existence of some fact to a prudent mind. It is not the claimed rights, convenience of a party or investment and even an apprehension of some loss or injury but what shall make one entitled for grant of injunction is:-

Ii) Prima facie case is existence of legal right which should appear to a prudent mind with a probability of success at the end of the day;

(ii) Balance of inconvenience is existence of circumstance (s) through which the plaintiff establishes that his inconvenience shall be greater than that of opposite party if injunction is not granted:

(iii) Irreparable loss/ injury do not refer to a damage or loss which can be ascertained or compensated but to such an injury which cannot be adequately compensated.

It should always be kept in mind that plaintiff has to establish co-existence of all said ingredients through pleading, document (s) attached therewith and affidavit, so sworn in support of the injunction application. Through discretionary powers. including Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. the Court is bound to protect legal rights, their infringements, malafide exercise of jurisdiction by an authority but such discretion should always to be used in aid of justice, equity and fair play but not in aid of a prima facie illegality or improper relief.

Having reaffirmed the above legal position, now it is the time to examine the case of the plaintiff whether plaintiff satisfies co- existence of all required ingredients for grant of injunction or otherwise?.”

9. In the case of MUHAMMAD SAAD & another v. AMNA & others (2015 YLR I), a Divisional Bench of this Court while deciding a High Court Appeal against an order passed on an injunction Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, has been pleased to hold as under: -

“17. While seeking a favourable injunctive relief the applicant is to prove the prima facie existence of the right claimed in the suit and also its infringement. But the mere fact that a prima facie case has been established will not entitle the applicant to an injunction unless the other two factors i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable damage or injury, are fulfilled. The Court is required to balance the inconvenience and to see as to whether applicant will suffer more inconvenience by the withholding of the injunction than that which the respondent would suffer by granting of injunction. The Court is further required to weigh the mischief of either party in case of grant or refusal of the injunction. Normally the balance lies in favour of continuation of a state of things, such as to protect the possession of a party or to allow the continuance of a contract. Similarly, while granting injunction or otherwise it has to be ensured that the grant of injunction to one party may not cause irreparable damage or injury to the other party whose loss cannot be compensated in terms of money.

18. In the case of Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg U. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while defining principles for grant or refusal of injunction has held as follows:

"The well-settled principle for the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions are, firstly, whether the plaintiff had a prima facie good case, secondly, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant of injunction and thirdly, whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is refused."

19. In the case of Abdul Ghafoor Memon u Muhammad and another PLD 1975 Karachi 464, learned Judge of this Court while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) and while defining the scope of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has held as under:

"It is the essence of all interim relief that the action in which it is claimed should be brought without unnecessary delay. In the instant case the encroachment in question took place on or about the 24h of September 1970, and it was not till about six months later that the action challenging it was, brought by petitioner. The petitioner, has, therefore, forfeited his right to interim relief by this unexplained delay and during this period the building of the respondent was allowed to reach in an advance stage of construction."

10. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not disputed the execution of the general power of attorney (GPOA), however, took a stance that the said general power of attorney was executed to save the subject plots Nos.50/3/1 and 50/3/2 (1117 Sq. Yds.) from encroachment as well as from the land grabbers. However, perusal of the contents of GPOA as referred to hereinabove shows that in the said general power of attorney a clear right to sell, mortgage, charge, encumber and convey or transfer the subject property by way of gift has been given to Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Adam, whereas, attorney has also been given authority to dispose of such property in manner whatsoever, with or without building and structure thereon, at such time in such manner, for such consideration and to such person as said Attorney in his/her sole, absolute and unfettered discretion may deem, proper, desirable and for the purpose aforesaid, to execute the necessary Deed, Conveyance Sale, Gift, Lease, Mortgage, Deeds of Redemption, Rectification, Relinquishment. Record further shows that pursuant to the execution of general power of attorney (GPOA) subject property has been transferred through registered documents in the year 2014, whereas, the suit has been filed in the year 2019, which prima facie, is barred by law, however, there is no findings by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order to this effect while dismissing of injunction application. The learned counsel for the appellant could not explain as to how and under what circumstances once the general power of attorney has been executed with right of transfer, sell, mortgage, etc. and after having received the due share from the sale proceeds of such properties through registered documents, the appellant is justified to retract from such authorization, however, such plea can be agitated for filing subject suit and seeking any restraining order in respect of the subject properties after lapse of more than five (05) years from the date of registration of the general power of attorney, particularly there has been no allegation of misuse general power of attorney. The learned Single Judge, after having examined all the facts and circumstances of the instant case and three factors required to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the injunction application i.e. (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of inconvenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury, has been pleased to hold as under: -

“7. Prima facie, the plaintiff has taken different plea (s) so establish the Trust but what the plaintiff does not dispute is the execution of 'General Power of Attorney' (Annexure A4 of paint w plea that same was executed to save plot Nos.50/3/1 and 50/3/2 area 11117 Sq yards from encroachment as well from land grabber The perusal of the General Power of Attorney shows purpose then f

“.... due to unavoidable circumstances parties of the first part are unable to utilize the said plots and as such they ne agreed to transfer the said plots to one of the decendents of one of 11.9 Trustees of this Trust hereinafter referred to as the said property.

The said power of attorney further shows:

"To possess manage and look after the above said property, to pay the DG KDAWING), KMC, Builders, due d other relevant charges, to execute and admit execution of any Deed including Lease Deed, Sub-Lease, Sale Deed, Mortgage Deed ......

"To demolish any existing structure on the said property and to rebuild wide part of the same for the purposes of letting it hire or otherwise in accordance with approved.....

To sell, mortgage, charge, encumber and to convey or transfer the said property by way of Gift (whether registered or Hiba Bilwa Ewas as the case may be) or otherwise dispose off in manner whatsoever with or without building and structure thereon at such time in such manner for such consideration and to such person as my said Attorney may in his / her sole, absolute and unfettered discretion may deem, proper, desirable and for the purpose aforesaid to execute the necessary Deed of …….

8. The above conditions of undisputed Power of Attorney prima facie, show that it was purposefully executed by all including the present plaintiff whereby the attorney was given specific and categorical powers and authorities to make transfer of subject matter, therefore, legally the plaintiff can't take in exception to his own acts which he himself agreed, particularly when no declaration or cancellation of such document is sought in the relief (s). Thus, it is quite safe to conclude the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case nor balance of convenience in his favour for grant of injunction because the possession stood delivered to the defendant No.3 who, even, has processed further for construction.

On the other hand, the sale has been in consequence to such power of attorney which, too, is claimed against valuable consideration therefore, prima facie case, flows in favour of the defendant.

9. Further, the defendants claimed to have shared / distributed shares among the Principals, including the present plaintiff therefore, the right of the plaintiff to claim such share. if not received, was / is alive. Thus, it is quite safe to say that the ground of irreparable loss is also not flowing in favour of the present plaintiff. Not only this, but prima facie the sale was / is in favour of the defendant no.3 who does qualify within meaning of male descendent hence even plea that trust was established for the benefit of male descendants is of no help for the plaintiff.

10. The above discussion makes it quite obvious that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for grant of injunction in his favour hence application for grant of injunction, prima facie fails. Accordingly, the same (CMA No.3564/2019) is hereby dismissed.”

11. From perusal of the aforesaid findings, it appears that the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretionary powers as vested in the Court to grant or otherwise reject an injunction, after examination of the material facts and the record, and has also taken into consideration three factors i.e. (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of inconvenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury, which in the instant case are apparently in favour of the rejection of a restraining order against the appellant. Moreover, the conduct of the appellant, delay in filing the suit, and a registered document in favour of the respondent, prima facie does not entitle the appellant to seek any interim relief without recording of evidence as to the allegations as contained in the plaint or disclosed in the injunction application, whereas, it is yet to be established that the transactions of sale/transfer of subject properties, for which, GPA was issued by the appellant, who has reportedly received his share also could not lawfully be sold/transferred. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any factual error or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on an injunction application, therefore, this Court vide short order dated 10.04.2023 has been pleased to dismiss instant High Court Appeal alongwith listed application and above are the reasons of such short order.

J U D G E

*Farhan/PS*