The trial court's discretion in granting or denying a temporary injunction should not be interfered with unless it acted arbitrarily, perversely, capriciously, or without relying on the record, and the petitioners must establish a strong prima facie case for the injunction.

1. - This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed against he order dated 1st Oct., 1993 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing the application filed under Section 41 read with Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act for temporary injunction.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that Raghuvar Dayal is having four sons viz., Anand Behari, Nand Lal, Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, Brij Behari and Kanwar Behari, defendant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Business of iron and steel was being done by the Hindu Undivided Family constituted by the aforesaid persons, which was later on converted into a partnership firm, in rented premises situated at 123, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur, 401, Thakur Pachewar-ka-Rasta, Jaipur and at Nawab Sahib-ki-Haveli, Jaipur. A dispute arose between plaintiff-petitioners and defendant-respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and as the same could not be settled amicably out side the court, the plaintiffs moved an application before the District Judge under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Along with that application, that the Arbitration Act. Along with that application, they also moved an application under Section 41 read with IInd Schedule of the Arbitration Act for grant of temporary injunction. Against the rejection of the application under Section 41, as aforesaid, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Shri B.P. Agrawal, counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that in an injunction application, like the present one, the law require the court to pass such an order that the parties maintain status quo. He further stated that the District judge has acted against the law, and beyond his jurisdiction. According to him, the findings of the District Judge on factual aspect of the case, are also perverse.

4. Counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the District judge and have stated that the re visional court should not interfere with an inter locutory order unless it is proved that the petitioner has a prima facie case in his favour or that balance of convenience is in his favour or that in case a stay order is not passed in his favour, he will suffer irreparable loss. According to him, petitioners have failed to establish any one the ingredients stated above.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. While dismissing. the application under Section 41 read with IInd Schedule of the Arbitration Act, the District judge has observed as under:

"mijksDr foospuksa ds vuqlkj esjh jk; esa izkFkhZx.k ;g crkus esa vleFkZ jgk gS fd muds i{k esa vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd;s tkus gsrq izFke n`"V;k dsl gS\ lqfo/kk dk lUrqyu muds i{k esa gS\ vkSj vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh ugha dh tkosxh rks mUgsa vifjefr {kfr gksxhA blfy;s muds }kjk izsf"kr izkFkZuk&i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA"

7. Section 41 of the Arbitration Act applied the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. this section is known of a discretionary character. Ordinarily, the re visional court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court, Interference with the discretionary order, however, could be justified if the trial court acted arbitrarily, perversely, capriciously or without relying on record. The trial court has given detailed and cogent reasons in his impugned order on all the aforesaid aspects and then gave the findings, quoted above. It has been held in Haridas Mondal v. Sahadeb Mondal, AIR 1980 Calcutta 140 that court in appeal would not interfere unless there is application of wrong principles.

8. So far as the prayer seeking direction to the respondents restraining them from alienating the property is concerned, no material has been brought to my notice which could lead me to hold that the petitioners' averments are correct. At this stage, it is not possible to determine as to whether the appellant had a strong prima case or not.

9. No other point has been raised before me.

10. For the reasons given above, this revision petition