Honble JAIN, J. – This revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is directed against the order dated 21.2.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali by which the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the impugned order dated 31.12.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bali rejecting the application of the petitioners under O. 39, R. 1 and 2 CPC was upheld. (2). The dispute in the present case lies in a small compass. The petitioners claimed to be the tenants of the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat, Nadol in respect of shops No. 1,3,4, 5 and 7 situated in Village Nadol. A dispute with regard to the above shops arose between the parties and the matter even reached this Court. However, by Resolution dated 8.1.1994, the matter seems to have been resolved. The Gram Panchayat, Nadol vide its Resolution dated 8.1.1994 allowed the petitioners to continue to occupy the suit shops upto 31-12-1994 after increasing the rent and the security amount by Rs. 10% in respect of each shop. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the Resolution dated 8.1.1994 and submitted that by this Resolution, the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat agreed to renew the lease/licence of the petitioners after making an increase in the rent and the security amount as stated, in the above Resolution and hence, according to the learned counsel, the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat was bound to renew the lease of the petitioners in respect of the above shops. He has contended that the petitioners are very poor and petty shop keepers and if the lease/licence in respect of the above shops is not renewed, they will loose their livelihood. (4). The trial Court as well as the appellate Court both referred to the Resolution dated 8.1.1994 and came to the conclusion that the above Resolution allowed the petitioner to remain in occupation of the suit shops upto 31.12.1994 and this Resolution does not envisage any agreement on the part of the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat to renew the lease further for a period of three years. Both the Courts below also came to the conclusion that in order to earn better yield in respect of the above shops, the non- petitioner Gram Panchayat is contemplating to auction the suit- shops and the petitioners are also entitled to bid in the auction. Both the Courts below also came to the conclusion that in order to earn better yield in respect of the above shops, the non- petitioner Gram Panchayat is contemplating to auction the suit- shops and the petitioners are also entitled to bid in the auction. The steps taken by the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat is in the welfare of the Gram Panchayat. (5). The learned counsel has also submitted in the alternative that if this Hon- ble Court comes to the conclusion that this petition has no force then sufficient time may be allowed to the petitioners to vacate the suit-shops in order to rehabilitate the petitioners at some other suitable place. (6). The learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat has supported the impugned order. He pointedly urged that both the Courts below reco- rded a concurrent finding of fact which is based on correct interpretation of the Resolution dated 8.1.1994. When both the Courts below agreed factually to a particular point, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked unless it is assailed on the ground that the order passed by the Courts below is capricious, arbitrary and against the principles of law. This view was expressed eloquently in Vimla Devi vs. Jang Bahadur (1), and even in Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Ajit Prasad (2), the Apex Court has laid down that the High Court should not interfere even if the order of the first appellate Court is right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The petitioners were, in fact, the licencees of the non-petitioners and the period of licence has also expired and thus, they have got no legal right to compel the non-petitioner Panchayat Samiti to renew their licences for a further period. Moreover, the non- petitioner Panchayat Samiti is not taking any arbitrary steps in letting out the above shops by putting them to open auction. The petitioners can also participate in the open bids at the auction. (7). I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is well settled that the order refusing temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. (7). I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is well settled that the order refusing temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, ca- priciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all relevant records. (8). In the instant case, the material document for consideration is the Resolution dated 8.1.1994 passed by the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat that the petitioners were the licencees of the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat and as per the above Resolution, their licences expired on 31.12.1994. Thus, after the expiry of the period of their licences as per the Resolution dated 8.1.1994 of the non- petitioner Gram Panchayat, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right to compel the non-petitioner to further renew their licences. Hence, the view taken by the Courts below appears to be correct. (9). Here, I would like to refer the observations made by the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Ajit Pd.s case (supra) whereby the Apex Court cautioned the High Courts from making un warranted interference with the orders passed by the Courts below in the revisional jurisdiction unless the same is not justified. (10). For the above reasons, I do not find any force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (11). However, looking to the hardship that may be caused to the petitioners, four months period is allowed to them to vacate the above suit-shops and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat provided they pay rent in advance within a period of 15 days from the date of this order to the non-petitioner Gram Panchayat in respect of the above suit-shops at the present rate. _