Appellate Court's jurisdiction to interfere with trial court's order on injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited. Appellate Court cannot upset trial court's order without finding error, perversity, or disregard of settled principles of law.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order dated 15.6.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Ludhiana, dismissing his application for temporary injunction.

2. It would be appropriate to set out a few facts in order to appreciate the rival contentions.

3. Petitioner and respondent. No. 1 are real brother Sunil Kumar and their mother Smt. Sudarshan Kumari Thapar are engaged in the business of hosiery goods and were residing in the house situated in Mohalla Noghara, Ludhiana. Plot No. 63-B situated in Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana, in respect of which the parties have a dispute is said to have been purchased in the year 1988 and thereafter a building was constructed over it. On 6.5.1992, a compromise is said to have been arrived between the brothers. This was followed by an agreement to sell dated 11.5.1992 whereby the petitioner agreed to transfer his share in the house to the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,25,000/-.

4. By alleging that the defendant-petitioner had failed to perform his part of the agreement and was still threatening the plaintiff-respondent to interfere with his possession and also threatening to alienate his share in the property to third party, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 11.5.1992 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff. He also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the property to any body else or to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.

5. Defendant-petitioner contested the suit by alleging that the plaintiff had failed to carry out his part of the agreement inasmuch as he did not take No Dues Certificate from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and had also failed to pay the amount as per the terms of the agreement. He also pleaded that a fresh agreement had been arrived at between the parties on 25.7.1993 putting an end to the previous agreement and the parties agreed that they are in joint possession of the disputed Kothi and on that account no injunction order should be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge First Class, Ludhiana, accepted the contentions of the defendant-petitioner and dismissed the injunction application. Against the order of the learned trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal and by the impugned order the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, accepted the appeal. While setting aside the order of the learned trial Court, the learned Appellate Court restrained the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent and further restrained him from alienating his share or creating any charge over the property.

7. Shri M.L. Saggar, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the order passed by the Appellate Court is wholly arbitrary and perverse inasmuch as the learned Appellate Court has not given any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. Elaborating his contention, learned counsel submitted that the learned Appellate Court has upset the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the issues of prima facie case and absence of equity in favour of the plaintiff without assigning any reason and in this manner, the learned Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that it was the plaintiff who had failed to make payment of Rs. 5,25,000/- on or before 30.10.1992 and also failed to get the No Dues Certificate from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and, therefore; he was not entitled to get an order of injunc