The appellate court cannot interfere with the discretionary order of the trial court unless it finds that the order is perverse or against the principles of law.

MOHD. YAMIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order of learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Pratapgarh dated 18-4-95 by which he issued temporary injunctions against the petitioners in appeal No. 64/95 which was filed against the order of Munsif. Pratapgarh dated 3-12-93 in which the learned Munsif had dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the orders passed by learned trial Judge as well as appellate Judge.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF Narayan has agricultural land in village Mawlana. There is a well in land bearing No. 47. He grows maize, chillies, onions, mustard, wheat, gram, garlic and opium etc. in the fields. There is a way out of abadi of the village which leads to his fields and well. He has been using the way since long. The way is on the higher pedestal while the fields are on the lower level. On the western side of the fields of the plaintiff there exist fields of defendants. There is a nala in Khasra No. 1 and 2. An anicut has been constructed by the State Government on this nala. Defendants take water from this anicut unauthorisedly and they have made a dhora (kachi nali) leading to their fields. Water seeps from this kacha nala and damages the crop of the plaintiffs. When objected to by the plaintiff the defendants agreed that they would fix a pipe so that the water may not seep and may not damage the crop of the plaintiff. Before filing the suit the defendants started to dig another dhora and carry water to their fields from the said anicut unauthorisedly which would definitely damage the crop of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore filed a suit for permanent injunction and an application for temporary injunction was also filed.

( 4 ) THE case of the defendants was that the fields of the plaintiff were about 30 feet away from kacha dhora. It was further pleaded that the anicut was constructed by the State Government 10 or 11 years before where the water of rains stocks. There existed a dhora in land bearing No. 37. The anicut was constructed for the purpose of agriculture by the government and the water flows from it to different fields for the purpose of irrigation. The plaintiff does not suffer because of it at all. It was further pleaded that the defendants did not start digging a new dhora instead they were cleaning the old dhora and then it was the plaintiff who interfered. The dhora is situated on land bearing No. 37 and 44 and the plaintiffs have no right or title over it and have no authority to put obstruction of it. Actually it is the plaintiffs who wanted the defendants not to irrigate their fields No. 65, 66 and 67. It has been further pleaded that the water does not seep from the dhora. After having heard and after having gone through the whole evidence submitted by the parties, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no prima facie case. He did not find the other two points in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the application. On appeal the learned Civil Judge, though agreed with the findings of the learned Munsif, even then he issued injunction by partly allowing the appeal. His order is as follows :-

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this order the petitioners-defendants have filed this revision.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of Vimla Devi v. Jung Bahadur, 1977 RLW 326 : (AIR 1977 Raj 196) and other rulings the orders of temporary injunction are discretionary and can be interfered with only when the lower court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily. The settled law is that the Judge of the appellate court would not substitute its own discretion merely because he might have come to a different conclusion. The appellate court can interfere only when the trial court had acted arbitrarily, perversely or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant record. The trial court had come to the conclusion i