This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the orderdated 06.05.2023 passed by leaned 11th District Judge, Indore in RCS.No.313- A/2023 whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

2. The brief facts of the case is that appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction thereby stating that they hv become heowner of he suit property vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2021 whereinthe share of the plaintiffs was 62.5% and that of defendant was 37.5% but the defendant are trying to sale the property the plaintiffs were forced to file the suitin question. The plaint is Annexure-B. With the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction Annexure-C for not alienating the suit property till disposal of the suit.

3. Respondent/defendant filed a reply to the application for grant of temporary injunction and along with the reply, respondent filed two unregistered and unstamped relinquishment deeds which were allegedly signed by plaintiff no.2 only and as per which the share of plaintiffs in the suit property was relinquished in favour of defendant. The defendant also filed consent deed as well as an unregistered agreement to sale. Copy of reply of defendant is Annexure-D.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a counter affidavit thereby categorically stating that they have came into knowledge of the alleged relinquished deed, agreement to sale or consent letter only after filing of the reply by defendant and on these documents, either there are no signature of plaintiffs or there are forged signature of plaintiff. Even otherwise any document creating any interest in immovable property is required to be compulsorily registered, hence, the said documents are not legally having any relevance. Copy of counter affidavit is Annexure -E.

5. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction by holding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, hence, even if balance of convenience and equity and irreparable loss is in favour of the plaintiffs, they cannot be granted injunction.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this miscellaneous appeal on the ground that whether prima facie case means that there is some question to be tried, hence there are various questions to betried i.e. whether the plaintiffs have executed the said relinquishment agreement to sale and consent letter; whether any interest in any immovable property can be created without registered document and without payment of stamp duty.

The trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. He further submitted that trial Court wrongly held that plaintiffs suppressed various documents in suit filed by some Pankaj Chhajed in which plaintiff filed the written statement. The written statement is Annexure-F. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed for setting aside theimpugned order dated 06.05.2023 passed by 11th District Judge, Indore inRCS No.313-A/2023 and grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

7. On the other hand, respondent/defendant supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in the caseof Maharwal Khewaji Trust Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "10. Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may f