As per case facts, the Petitioner-Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a suit property based on a registered Sale Deed from 2010, derived from an 'irrevocable' Power of Attorney from ... 2002. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction in their favor. However, the Respondent-Defendant argued prior transactions and a subsequent Sale Deed (executed 2008, registered 2011) that should prevail, also alleging suppression of a pending suit challenging the Plaintiff's Sale Deed. The District Judge allowed the Respondent's appeal, setting aside the injunction, finding that the earlier Sale Deed prevailed and noting suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff. The Petitioner-Plaintiff filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, challenging the District Judge's order for allegedly exceeding jurisdiction and committing manifest error. The question arose whether the District Judge's order, which considered the nature of the Power of Attorney, priority of Sale Deeds, and suppression of facts, was perverse or arbitrary, thus warranting interference by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. Finally, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming the District Judge's decision. It held that the Power of Attorney was not prima facie irrevocable and noted the Plaintiff's suppression of prior claims and pending litigation. The High Court found no patent error, perversity, or unreasonableness in the District Judge's judgment, especially given the Plaintiff's lack of clean hands and subsequent transfer of interest in the property.