Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Sharad Mandhyan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent No. 1 and Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent No. 2.

2. This first appeal from order has been preferred by Mahendra Singh and Braham Pal Singh, plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by Sri Jai Singh Pundir, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit No. 833 of 2010 (Mahendra Singh and another v. Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society and another), by which the application for temporary injunction, 6C-2, filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-appellants filed Original Suit No. 833 of 2010 for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in their possession over the Flat No. F-15, Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society, Builders Area, Pocket-P-4, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the flat in dispute). In the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (Paper No. 6C-2) alongwith affidavit 7C-2 on the same averments as made in the plaint. The averments made in the application for temporary injunction 6C-2 are that the defendant No. 1 is a registered Society. Sohan Lal, who was father of the plaintiff No. 1 Mahendra Singh, was a member of the Society having membership No. 624. Sohan Lal and defendant No. 1 executed an agreement on 25.11.1997 for allotment of Type -1 flat in Residential Complex Pocket-P-4, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar raised by the Society defendant No. 1. The aforesaid Sohan Lal made payment of all the installments by the year 2000 in pursuance of the agreement executed on 25.11.1997 for allotment of Unit Type-1 flat. Accordingly, Sohan Lal was allotted the flat in dispute in the lottery and was handed over its possession on 29.9.2000. On this basis, Sohan Lal claimed to be owner and in possession of the flat in dispute. The plaintiff No. 2 Braham Pal Singh being husband of the real sister of Sohan Lal (Phoopha) alongwith his family, was allowed to reside in the flat in dispute. Since beginning of the year 2001, the plaintiff No. 2 alongwith his family has been residing in flat in dispute. The society, defendant No. 1 has been providing all the facilities and amenities like supply of water, electricity and maintenance etc. Thus the plaintiff No. 1 claimed peaceful possession of his Phoopha, plaintiff No. 2 and family of plaintiff No. 2 on his behalf over the flat in dispute. It is averred that Smt. Dropadi Amar, defendant No. 2 came over the flat in dispute on 3.8.2010 and just then the defendant No. 2 claimed to be allottee of the flat in dispute and the defendants threatened to evict the plaintiffs from the flat in dispute in an illegal manner.

4. The defendant No. 2 Smt. Dropadi Amar by way of filing objections, 16C-2, alongwith counter-affidavit 17C-2 averred that the flat in dispute was allotted to her and the plaintiffs had in an illegal way taken possession of the flat in dispute. Since the plaintiffs are unlawful occupants of the flat in dispute, they are not entitled to obtain any injunction against the true owner. It has further been averred in the objections that the plaintiffs had not come to the Court with clean hands and filed the said suit concealing the true and real facts. They are not entitled to get the relief from the Court. The defendant No. 2 has further averred that the document dated 29.9.2000, upon which the plaintiffs claimed to have obtained possession of the flat in dispute, is prima facie a fabricated and forged paper. The plaintiffs had not paid the complete allotment money. The plaintiffs claimed allotment in their favour on 29.9.2000 and on the same day, they claimed to have obtained possession of t