IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appellate courts should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court unless it has been shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perversely exercised.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal from order is filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.186 of 2022, whereby, the trial Court has granted application below Exh.5 in part by directing the defendants not to create any further charge or transfer the property or by way of executing any sale deed or gift and during the pendency of the suit, the status quo should be maintained.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original status as plaintiff and defendants. The defendant no.5 Rama Filament Pvt. Ltd. sought Rs.150/- lakh term from the plaintiff and the same came to be approved on 9.9.1999. The respondent no. 4-Murli Manohar Goyal, Director, for exchange of collateral security, a letter dated 16.9.1999 was written and in it, Adajan Sub-District, Mouje Pal Village having Revenue Survey No.176, Block No.161 property is requested to be placed in security. The land which was to be given as security is the property of the father of the defendant no. 3 and therefore, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Deputy Collector and therefore, Gangarambhai applied before the Deputy Collector as per Section 5 and 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 to mortgage this land and on the basis of such application of Gangarambhai, permission was granted by the Deputy Collector on 23.9.1999. Therefore, the sanctioned letter of the plaintiff was amended and accepted on 24.9.1999. By Gangarambhai on 17.9.1999, an affidavit was also given regarding the ownership of this land. On 17.09.1999, title clearance of the property also came into picture. Thereafter, by Gangarambhai, the defendant No.6 was given power of attorney and thereby, defendant No.6 on 23.09.1999 executed registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and it was lastly numbered as 9244/2017.

2.2 After taking the loan, some amount was paid by the defendant no.5 and since the balance amount of the loan was not paid, the plaintiff proceeded under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and the possession of the secured property was obtained on 10.12.2007 by way of Panchnama. In the meantime, the father of defendant no.3 had passed away and respondent no.3 filed an RTI dated 29.04.2008 and in the application it was stated that the plaintiff- corporation has put up a board on its land, so to inform as to why the board is there. Even thereafter, the heirs of Gangarambhai have been in correspondence from time to time and the premises have been taken over by the plaintiff-corporation. It is alleged that the defendant no.1 to 3 in connivance with the other defendants, despite their knowledge, have falsely raised sale documents and acted to prejudice the rights of the plaintiff-corporation to recover public money. That the power of attorney in favour of the defendant- Vinod Goyal has been stated to be wrong but the document produced in that regard is only an opinion and that opinion is also formed after the death of Gangarambhai and in such circumstances, it is the case of the concerned party that at the present stage, it cannot be held that the power of attorney is wrong and Gangarambhai has himself sought permission to mortgage the land from the Collector during his lifetime.

2.3 The mortgage deed relied upon by the plaintiff is the mortgage deed executed by the defendant no.6 and Gangarambhai had not given any power of attorney and they have filed a criminal complaint regarding no signature of Gangarambhai in the power of attorney as per the mortgage deed and have been charged with the criminal proceedings and FSL report shows that signature is not of Gangarambhai and hence this document is void. The loan was sanctioned before the change of security by the plaintiff and the loan was sanctioned without any verification. Even in the mortgage deed, the signature of defendant no.6 is not done as a power of attorney of Gangarambhai. Further, n