The appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with an injunction order passed by the trial court unless the order is perverse or wholly arbitrary or was passed by the trial court ignoring the settled legal principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19-9-1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1994 (Balbir Singh V/s. Guru Nanak Education Trust). The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 19-9-1994 because the learned Additional District Judge has accepted the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and has dismissed the injunction application filed by the petitioners.

2. In order to determine the various points raised in this petition, it is necessary to make reference to the facts of the case. Guru Nanak Education Trust was registered vide Trust Deed dated 1-6-1969. Originally there were seven trustees and the trust deed contemplated appointment of more trustees. Initially Shri Avtar Singh was the President of the Board of Trustees. He resigned in the year 1970 and was succeeded by Shri Gurnam Singh. Avtar Singh was unanimously elected as President when the said office became vacant due to the death of Sh. Gurnam Singh. Avtar Singh relinquished the office of the President on account of medical reasons and in the meeting of the members held on 7-3-1981 Gurbir Singh was elected as President. On 21-7-1985 Gurbir Singh was removed and was replaced by Ujagar Singh. On 15-10-1986 Ujagar Singh was removed from the office of the President and in his place Avtar Singh was elected. On 30-12-1992 the office of President again became vacant due to the death of Avtar Singh. In the meeting held on 15-2-1992 Gurbir Singh was authorised to appoint any person as President. He, however, did not exercise his power and, therefore, election was held. In this election Gurbir Singh was elected as President. In this meeting Shri Balbir Singh was elected as Vice-President and Jagdev Singh Grewal was elected as Secretary. It was also resolved in the meeting on 9-4-1993 that the President, the Vice-President and the Secretary will operate the bank account by any two of them jointly signing the papers.

3. It appears that dispute arose between the parties sometime in July/ August, 1993. On 26-8-1993 Secretary of the Trust wrote a letter to the trustees calling upon them to submit agenda items for the next meeting. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 suggested certain items one of which was that the venue of the Trust meeting should not be outside the premises of the Girls College. They also gave out that in case the items mentioned by them were not included in the agenda, their letter dated 30-8-1993 should be taken as a requisition for the Trust meeting. On 3-9-1993, the Secretary of the Trust issued telegrams for meeting on 7-9-1993 which was to be held at Chandigarh. On their part, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 sent telegrams dated 4-9-1993 that a requisition meeting of the Trust will be held in the College premises at Ludhiana. They also questioned the legality of the meeting to be held at Chandigarh. On 5-9-1993 Vice-President of the Trust issued telegrams to the members calling upon them to attend the meeting at Chandigarh and asserted that the meeting being held at Chandigarh was a legal one. On 7-9-1993 two meeting were held one at Chandigarh and the other at Ludhiana. The Chandigarh meeting was attended by the President, Secretary and one trustee Baldev Singh. Attar Singh was represented by proxy. In this meeting it was decided to adopt the rules for donor trustees. At the same time, respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were inducted as donor trustees. Minutes of the meeting held on 8-9-1993 were also confirmed. The Ludhiana meeting was attended by three persons - respondents Nos. 1 to 3 - who appointed themselves as President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Trust respectively. They also decided to operate the bank account of the Trust. At the same time, one Parminder Singh was appointed as a trustee. A letter dated 7-9-1993 was sent by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to the Bank stating therein that they were authorised to operate the bank account.

4. On 8-9-1993 a notice was sent to all the members of t