ARUNA SURESH, J.

1. By this common order, I shall dispose of two applications; one filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and the other filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order passed by this court on 17th August, 2007.

2. Briefly narrated the case of the plaintiffs is that Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are real brothers. Plaintiff No.2 is the wife of Plaintiff No.1 whereas defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Parties to the suit purchased a residential plot No.43, Jasola, Pocket 1, behind Apollo Hospital Delhi, admeasuring 250.14 sq. metres jointly from the DDA in an auction. Perpetual Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2005 duly registered in favour of the parties was executed by the DDA/defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 had acted for and on behalf of the plaintiffs as their Special Power of Attorney holder at the time of execution and registration of the Perpetual Lease Deed by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 on 1st October, 2004 duly registered at the office of the Sub Registrar. Plaintiffs along with their children left for USA in the year 2004 after execution of Power of Attorney and Letter of Authorization, etc. including Power of Attorney dated 1.10.2004 in favour of defendant No.1 empowering him to act on their behalf in respect to their half un-demarcated share in the said immoveable property. Plaintiffs also executed a Power of Attorney and Letter of Authorization, etc. in favour of defendant No.1 in USA and sent them to defendant No.1 and 2 to act upon the same as they had trust and confidence on defendant No.1 being Plaintiff No.1’s younger brother.

3. In the month of May, 2007, plaintiffs came to know that defendants No.1 and 2 were negotiating for the sale of the suit property without informing and without obtaining consent of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore, executed Deed of Revocation of General Power of Attorney dated 24th May, 2007 whereby they revoked Power of Attorney dated 1.10.2004 issued by them in favour of defendant No.1 and also all other Power of Attorneys given in favour of defendant No.1 thereafter. Plaintiffs also got issued a Public Notice dated 24th May, 2007 in ‘Sunday Statesman’ informing the public that defendant No.1 had no authority to do any act, deed of transaction on Plaintiffs behalf in respect of the suit property. Necessary intimation was also sent to Sub Registrar, Mehrauli, Sub Registrar Aruna Asaf Ali Road and DDA. Plaintiffs apprehended, on the basis of reliable information received by him that, defendants would in illegal manner sell, alienate, transfer or part with possession of the half un-demarcated share of the plaintiffs in the suit property, thereby causing wrongful loss to them and undue gain to themselves. Hence, the present application seeking temporary injunction against defendants No.1 and 2 for restraining them from alienating the suit property in any manner or creating any third party interest in the same.

4. Defendants have contested the application and also as stated above, filed an application seeking vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants have contended in their reply that plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit property in view of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the parties on 1.10.2004, pursuant to which the plaintiffs sold their entire right and claim over the property and gave up their 50% undivided share in the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 on receipt of payment of Rs.14,50,000/- vide receipt dated 1.10.2004. The Plaintiffs also executed General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 granting all rights and interest in the suit property including the sale, alienation, etc. of the property. Besides, plaintiffs also executed Indemnity Bond and a Notarized Will in fav