Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 9-11-2006 by which the application for temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present appeal.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 47/2006 and shall be referred to as plaintiff, hereinafter. The plaintiff and defendant no. 1 (defendant, for short) were divorced by a decree dated 20-6-1998. The plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant on 13-9-2005, but revoked the same by a notice published on 12-10-2005, and again revalidated the same by another notice dated 10-12-2005.

5. The said power of attorney, had amongst others, the following clauses:

"9. To negotiate, agree to sell, dispose off or transfer by way of exchange, lease (whether permanent, for long or short period) the entire property or any part thereof, at such terms which may said lawful general attorney at her sole discretion deems fit and proper, with any person, whatsoever including herself and to enter into any agreement with the purchaser, to receive earnest money in her own name and to issue receipts thereof.

12. To execute, sign and present for registration, before the proper Registering Authority, proper Sale/Conveyance Deed, for conveying my rights, interests, liens and titles in the property of the said Properties, and the land beneath the same, or any part thereof, in favour of the intended purchaser(s) or her nominee(s) and to do all other acts, deeds and things which are necessary for the purpose i.e. to receive the consideration and to admit the receipt thereof, and to deliver the possession to the said purchaser(s) or her nominee(s) either physical or constructive as may be feasible." Reference to the above clauses has been made in particular by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff.

6. Pursuant to the said power of attorney, the defendant on 6-10-2005 executed six sale deeds of properties selling the same to herself, out of eighteen properties mentioned on the said power of attorney. It appears that the said properties belonged to the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is the plaintiffs share which the defendant sold to herself by virtue of the said sale deeds and presented the same for registration on 7-10-2005, but they were actually registered on 16-10-2005. There is also no dispute that the sale price for which the said properties were sold by the defendant through the said power of attorney to herself, has not been paid to the plaintiff and in fact a submission was made by Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant, that the defendant was ready and willing to deposit the said amount in Court.

7. The first submission of Shri Kakodkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff is that minimum which was expected by the trial Court was a direction to maintain a status quo, considering the plaintiff's allegation that the properties sold were under valued, and consideration was not paid to the plaintiff. In this context, Shri Kakodkar, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, 2005(1) Mh.L.J (SC) 1043 = 2004 (8) SCC 488, wherein the Apex Court observed that :

"Unless and until 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 facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court also observed that:

"The High court was not justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature of the property by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be the conditions on which the same is done,