Short Note : The material fact giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows. Opponent Kailashpuri has instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He also flied an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant-applicants from passing through his fields. The application was rejected by the trail Court but, on appeal the lower appellate Court held that from the material on record the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The lower appellate Court further held that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff If temporary injunction, as prayed for was not granted to him and that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court, granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that order, the applicants have preferred this revision petition. 2. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed The fact that the lower appellant Court had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order was not and could not be disputed before me. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, contended that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the material on record. But, as held by the supreme Court in Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad ( AIR 1973 SC 76 ), the order passed by the lower Court may be right or wrong. this Court cannot interfere with that order if the lower Court had jurisdiction to pass that order Learned counsel for the applicants was unable to satisfy me that, in passing the impugned order, the lower appellate Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.