ORDER :

V.Lakshminarayanan, J.

Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan learned Senior Counsel for Ms.Deepika, for petitioner and Mrs.P.Yasmin Begum for the 1^st respondent.

2. The present appeal challenges the dismissal of the application for injunction in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.198 of 2024 on the file of the IV-Additional District Judge at Madurai, dated 27.01.2026.

3. The petitioner is the wife/plaintiff and the 1^st respondent is the husband/1^st defendant and the 2^nd respondent is the Bank/2^nd defendant. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

4. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal, I need not delve deep into the facts of the case. The following facts are not in dispute:

The parties entered into a contract of marriage as per Islamic rites and customs on 29.05.2005; two children were born from the wedlock; and, on account of disputes and differences, the parties are before the Court.

5. O.S.No.198 of 2024 is a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit has three schedules: 'A' schedule property is an immovable property situated at Madurai; 'B' schedule properties are movable properties in the form of gold jewels, which the plaintiff claims were purchased jointly by the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant; and 'C' schedule properties are gold jewels which the plaintiff claims were purchased by her parents and gifted to her at the time of marriage and thereafter. The plaintiff and the 1^st defendant deposited 1880 grams of gold with M/s.HDFC Bank/2^nd defendant.

6. The plaintiff claims that out of 1880 grams of gold, she is entitled to 1400 grams of gold ornaments. In addition, she claims that 960 grams of gold were jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. She also claims that she is entitled to a half share in the 'A' schedule property, a half share in the 'B' schedule properties, and the entirety of the 'C' schedule properties.

7. The suit was taken on file and summons were issued to the defendants. The 1^st defendant claims that the 'A' schedule property is covered by a mortgage and that he has been servicing the mortgage. We are not concerned with the 'A' schedule property in this appeal. Insofar as the jewels are concerned, the 1^st defendant denies the plaintiff's right over 960 grams of jewels. He claims that the entirety of the jewels, to an extent of 998.5 grams, were purchased by him from several private jewellers in India, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. Insofar as other jewels contained in the suit schedule, he claims that they were gifted by his parents and other family members to his two daughters, at the time of their birth and when they attained puberty.

8. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for an interim injunction. It is also not in dispute that, as she and her children are in the Republic of Ireland, the plaintiff, reposing faith in her brother, executed a Power of Attorney in his favour. He filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking to present the plaint as the Power of Attorney invoking Order III Rule 2 of the Code. This Power of Attorney had been executed on 3^rd October, 2023. The suit itself came to be presented by the Power of Attorney on 07.04.2024. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff sought for Ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner withdrawing the gold jewels in Gold Jewel Loan Account No. 73664544 and the overdraft Account No.50200043390691 which are being held by the 2^nd defendant, M/s.HDFC Bank, Madurai.

9. Soon after filing of the suit, permission to sue as the Power of Attorney was granted. In addition, the Trial Court also granted an interim injunction in I.A. No. 2 of 2024, restraining the defendants as prayed for.

10. The 1^st defendant filed a detailed counter to the interlocutory application and sought vacating the injunction granted.

11. One of the objections raised by the 1^st defendant was that the Power of Attorney had been granted only with respect to the 'A' schedule property and no