JUDGMENT :

K.A. Puj, J.

The appellants - original plaintiffs have filed this Appeal From Order under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the City Civil Court below Notice of Motion Ex.6/7 in Civil Suit No.2492 of 2004 dated 26.9.2006, whereby the learned City Civil Judge has vacated ad interim relief granted earlier at the time of filing of suit and rejected the Notice of Motion.

2. This Court has issued notice on 2.11.2006 and the respondents were restrained from transferring, alienating the suit property and further directed to maintain the status quo prevailing as on the date of issuance of notice. This interim relief continues till this date.

3. Heard Mr. S.M.Shah, learned advocate appearing with Mr.C.H.Vora, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. D. C. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 7. Despite service of notice nobody appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. It is the case of the appellants - original plaintiffs that they did not sell their land of Final Plot No.330 admeasuring 2090 Sq. Mtrs. Situated in Bodakdev of Ahmedabad City. The appellants - plaintiffs have also alleged in the plaint that the defendants have acted in a criminal conspiracy and got executed a forged instrument purporting to be a power of attorney in favour of the respondent No.3 said to have been executed by the plaintiffs. On the basis of the said power of attorney, sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that on the date of execution of power of attorney, they were not in India and hence according to them there was no question of execution of this power of attorney. Despite this fact, the sale deed was executed in favour of Non Trading Corporation and construction was made and bunglows were allotted to the members. When this fact has come to the knowledge of the appellants they have filed suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, praying for declaration that alleged power of attorney is forged document on the basis of which sale deed was executed and hence the suit property was got transferred in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. The appellants - plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction in the suit.

5. Mr. S.M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants - plaintiffs have not suppressed any material fact as observed by the learned City Civil Judge in the impugned order. He has further submitted that all necessary averments are made in the plaint to the effect that in 1991 the respondents-defendants Nos.1 and 2 have got executed the agreement to sell from Smt. Chandrikaben, sister of the appellant-plaintiff No.1 and the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff No.1 and his father, Somabhai and as the said agreement to sell was illegal, invalid and void, the plaintiffs-appellants refused to execute a sale deed of the land in favour of the respondents-defendants Nos.1 & 2. He has further submitted that in view of these averments, there is no question of any suppression of facts. Since the agreement to sell executed in 1991 was invalid, illegal and void, at the most it is open for the defendants to ask for specific performance of that agreement but in no case, the defendants or any one of them are permitted to commit a crime of forging a document purporting to be a general power of attorney of appellants-plaintiffs No.1 & 2 in favour of the defendant No.3. He has further submitted that there was no suppression of facts and hence observation made by the learned City Civil Judge in this regard are uncalled for. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs-appellants have not executed any power of attorney in favour of the respondent-defendant No.3 and, therefore, sale deed dated 15.12.2003, said to have been executed by the respondent-defendant No.3 in favour of respondents-defendants Nos.4 and 5 could not be sai