Honble YADAV, J. — Since both appeals are arising out of the same order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur, therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by a composite judgment. The appeal No. 602/94 would be treated as a leading appeal. (2). The plaintiff-appellant No.l to 3, Arun Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Shanta Devi filed a civil suit for partition and for accounting with a prayer for permanent injunction against Mohan Lal, Lata, Man Kanwar, Kaushalya and Ichhalal. (3). According to the plaintiff-appellants the disputed property consists of six shops and one residential house alongwith some open space. According to the plaint allegations property in question is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to the plaint allegations, since the defendant No.l Icchalal was not prepared to partition and he wanted to enjoy the fruits of entire property which has necessitated to file the instant suit for partition to get their share partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs however alleged that since the rent was being received by the defendant No.l Ichhalal, therefore, he may be directed to submit a detailed account and as per account whatever share is found due that may be given to the plaintiff-appellants. (4). The plaintiff-appellants also filed an application for temporary injunction alongwith the aforesaid civil suit under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC with a prayer that the defendant No.l may be restrained from alienating the disputed property and he may be further restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellants from the disputed property and also from interfering in their peaceful enjoyment of the joint property in question till decision of the suit. (5). The defendant No.l, Ichhalal, filed a reply to the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff appellants denying the joint ownership of the disputed property, although it was clearly admitted that the name of Pushkar Narayan and Mohanlal were mentioned in the sale deed out of love and affection. Thus according to the defendant-respondent No.l, Ichhalal, Pushkar Narayan and Mohanlal have no right, title or interest over the dispute property. Oral family settlement is also" alleged in Samvat 2030. . (6). Thus according to the defendant-respondent No.l, Ichhalal, Pushkar Narayan and Mohanlal have no right, title or interest over the dispute property. Oral family settlement is also" alleged in Samvat 2030. . (6). After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants as well as on behalf of the contesting respondent No.l, Ichhalal, the application of injunction of the plaintiff-appellants was allowed on 17.11.1994 and it was ordered that both the parties to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit but it was further ordered by the learned trial court that the injunction order passed by him has nothing to do with the recovery of the rent. It is pertinent to mention that the learned trial court vide his order dated 17.11.94 also restrained the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, from raising any construction over the land in dispute and he was also restrained from alienating the property in question. (7). The aforesaid injunction order which was passed by the trial court on the application moved by the plaintiff appellants under 0.,39 r. 1 and 2 CPC was attained finality between the parties inasmuch as no appeal has been filed against this order. However, in the present appeal a controversy centre-around an application moved by the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC making a prayer that the plaintiff- appellants and the defendants No.2 to 5 be restrained from recovering the rent from the tenants of the disputed property. (8). The plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 filed their reply to the above application and alleged that the rent was being recovered as per oral agreement between the parties and the tenants have also started making payment from 1.4.94. In reply it was also alleged that the defendant No.l was not entitled for temporary injunction as an application filed by him is not maintainable. (9). After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent No.l, Ichhalal, the learned trial court allowed the injunction application of the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, on 17.11.94 restraining the plaintiff-appellants and defendants No.2 to 5 from interfering with the recovery of rent of six disputed shops by defendant No.l Ichhalal. (10). Aggrieved against the temporary injunction granted to the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, on 17.11.94 by learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, two civil misc. (10). Aggrieved against the temporary injunction granted to the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, on 17.11.94 by learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, two civil misc. appeals have been filed one by Arun Kumar & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 602/94) and other misc. appeal was filed by Mohanlal and others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 667/94). (11). I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. R.K. Thanvi and Mr. K.N. Joshi in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 602/94 and Mr. Prakash Tatia in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 667/94 as well as learned counsel for the defendant No.l Shri L.R. Calla and Mr. Prakash Tatia for defendant No.2 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 602/94 and Mr. R.K. Thanvi for defendant Nos.l to 3 and Mr. L.R. Calla for defendant No.4 Ichhalal in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 667/1994. (12). Before deciding the controversy raised in these two misc. appeals it would be proper to keep in view the law relating to interference with the discretion exercised by the learned trial court either granting temporary injunction or refusing the same. Ordinarily the court of appeal will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court and substitute for its own discretion but the interference with the discretionary power however may be justified if the lower court acted arbitrarily or perversely or capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principle without considering all the relevant materials on record. Mere possibility of the appellate court reaching on a different conclusions on the same facts and findings will not justify interference. (13). Apart from the aforesaid principles it is well to remember that a person who invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the civil court seeking its equitable interference under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC he must be prepared to do equity with his opponent. In my humble opinion, granting or refusing temporary injunction assume importance in civil litigation, therefore, civil courts are required to examine such question with care and caution. (14). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants invited my attention towards the various documents brought on record on 3.12.94. From the list of the documents filed, it is apparent that document No.l is a rent note while document Nos. (14). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants invited my attention towards the various documents brought on record on 3.12.94. From the list of the documents filed, it is apparent that document No.l is a rent note while document Nos. 2 to 12 are receipts and document No.13 is a notice given on behalf of Ichhalal through his counsel to one of the tenants Madanlal demanding arrears of rent of three months. Document No.14 is the reply given by tenant Madanlal to the counsel of defendant No.l Ichhalal stating therein that he himself has instructed him to pay rent to Arun Kumar one of the plaintiffs. Document No.15 is an-other notice given by defendant No.l Ichhalal through his counsel to another tenant Murlidhar demanding arrears of rent of three months. Next document is the reply given by tenant Murlidhar to the counsel for defendant No.l Ichhalal stating therein that on his own instructions he was . paying rent to plaintiff Arun Kumar. (15). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting defendant No.l, Ichhalal, Shri L.R. Calla strenuously argued that since these documents were filed on 3.12.94, therefore, learned trial court has no opportunity to look into these documents. Learned counsel Shri Callas next contention is that since these documents are not signed by defendant Ichhalal therefore, these documents have no material bearing in granting or refusing temporary injunction. (16). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. In my considered opinion while granting temporary injunction in favour of defendant Ichhalal on his application under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC the learned trial court was required to address itself under which provision temporary injunction was granted to the defendant specially when on the same facts it has already granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff-appellants under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC. The sound principle of granting temporary injunction under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC is not the same as contemn plated under Section 151 CPC. In fact Sec. 151 CPC can be pressed into service for granting temporary injunction only if the case of a defendant is not covered under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC not otherwise. The sound principle of granting temporary injunction under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC is not the same as contemn plated under Section 151 CPC. In fact Sec. 151 CPC can be pressed into service for granting temporary injunction only if the case of a defendant is not covered under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC not otherwise. It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Sec. 151 CPC cannot be allowed to nullify the mandatory specific provisions contemplated under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC for granting or refusing temporary injunction. The provisions contemplated u/S. 151 CPC can be invoked to meet a situation or a contingency for which there is no specific provision under C.P.C. (17). Injunction order granted under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC is appealable under 0.43 r. 1 (r) CPC while temporary injunction granted u/S. 151 CPC is devisable as contemplated u/S. 115 CPC. Thus the learned trial court was under legal obligation to disclose under which provisions he has granted temporary injunction to defendant No.l Ichhalal in the instant case. (18). Secondly the learned trial court while granting temporary injunction to the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, was required to address itself to those circumstances under which a co-sharer is entitled to obtain temporary injunction. Law relating to grant temporary injunction to a co-sharer is not the same as in a case of rival contenders who did not claim relationship of co-sharers in a suit. (19). Thirdly indisputably in the sale deed the names of Pushkar Narain and Mohanlal are mentioned over the disputed property although according to the defendant No.l, Ichhalal the names of Pushkar Narain and Mohanlal are mentioned due to love and affection. While recording a prima facie case in favour of defendant Ichhalal the learned trial court was required to look into Benami Transaction Act, recently passed by Parliament as after passing of the aforesaid Act much water has flown to the old concept of Benami Transaction as claimed in the present suit by defendant No.l. (20). Thus from the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the learned trial court has granted injunction to the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, in disregard of the sound legal principles and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Thus from the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that the learned trial court has granted injunction to the defendant No.l, Ichhalal, in disregard of the sound legal principles and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. But I do not propose to substitute my own discretion in place of the discretion of the trial court hence the case is remanded to the learned trial court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. (21). The upshot of the aforesaid discussions is that the temporary injunction granted by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Misc. Case No.56/94 dated 17.11.1994 is hereby set aside and the instant appeals are allowed and dispute between the parties about grant of temporary injunction on the application of defendant No.l. Ichhalal is remanded to the learned trial court to decide it afresh in accordance with law in the light of the list of documents filed on 3.12.1994. Costs easy. (22). Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 667/1994.