A. B. MURGOD, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against condition nos. 3 and 6 imposed by the learned munsiff in original suit No. 111 of 1990 while rejecting application la. No. Ii filed by first respondent-plaintiff under order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts are that the first respondent-plaintiff son of respondents 2 and 3 instituted the suit original suit No. 111 of 1990 claiming his 1/3rd share by partition in the property alienated by his parents in favour of the 5th defendant who is the petitioner in this revision petition before this court. The application i. a. No. Ii was for interim injunction to prevent the revision petitioner from putting up construction on the plaint schedule property. The said application was contested and after considering the submissions on both sides, the learned munsiff proceeded to dismiss the application imposing certain conditions of which conditions at serial nos. 3 and 6 are challenged in this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable and according to him only an appeal could be filed against order refusing injunction and he relied on decision in Bettegowda v Arasa Hanumaiah. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that revisionis not directed against the dismissal of the application for grant of injunction under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. according to him, the trial court has power to impose conditions under Section 94 (l) (e) and Section 151, C. P. C. while rejecting application for injunction. Therefore, according to him the conditions imposed in such order while rejecting the application for injunction can be subject-matter of revision. It is therefore pointed out that condition No. 3 is inconsistant with condition No. 2 by which the petitioner is permitted to create any encumbrance which would be subject to the final result in the suit. He further submitted that condition No. 6 requires the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,000/- and is totally foreign to the scope of the suit. It is replied that condition No. 2 is in respect of past encumbrance and condition No. 3 is in respect of future encumbrance and condition No. 3 is not inconsistant with the condition No. 2. He further submitted that condition No. 6 requires the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,000/- and is totally foreign to the scope of the suit. It is replied that condition No. 2 is in respect of past encumbrance and condition No. 3 is in respect of future encumbrance and condition No. 3 is not inconsistant with the condition No. 2. With regard to condition No. 6 that the petitioner should deposit Rs. 15,000/- into court and construct the building, it is replied that the amount is to meet the expenses of demolition, if necessary. ( 5 ) ORDER xxxix, rules 1 and 2 read as under :1. Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise, (A) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a. Decree, or (B) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defeat his creditors, (C) that the defendant threatens or dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such Act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Rule 2 (1) in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract of injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. 2. The court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the court thinks fit. 2. The court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the court thinks fit. Reading of the above Provisions shows that court has got power to impose conditions while granting an injunction under order 39, Rule 2 and these Provisions do not enable the court to impose conditions while rejecting the prayer for injunction by dismissing the application filed under rules 1 and 2 of order 39 of C. P. C. the decision in bettegowda's case, supra, relied on by the first respondent based on sub-section (2) of Section 115, C. P. C. provides that an order of subordinate court, if appealable either to the high court or a subordinate court, shall not be varied by a high court under Section 115 of c. p. c, and by the use of negative words "shall not" the legislature clearly intended that sub-section (2) to be peremptory and absolute and when an appealable order is made by a subordinate court, the legislature intended that the party aggrieved by such an order should, in the first instance, work out his remedy in an appeal and then only approach the high court in revision and not otherwise. The revision petitioner is not aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for injunction. Therefore, there is no question of preferring an appeal against that order and therefore the contention that an appeal lies against the impugned order is not correct. The grievance of the revision petitioner is against the conditions imposed while rejecting the application for injunction and such conditions could be imposed by the trial court in exercise of its power under Section 151, C. P. C. when such conditions are imposed and if the party against whom such conditions are imposed is aggrieved, the remedy of the party is to prefer a revision petition and not to file an appeal under order 43 as contended on behalf of the first respondent and therefore, the first contention in that behalf in regard to maintainability of the revision petition raised by first respondent stands rejected. ( 6 ) THE court below has imposed condition nos. ( 6 ) THE court below has imposed condition nos. 2 and 3 which read as under : (2) in case of construction of any building in suit item No. 1 of 'a' schedule property in which the plaintiff has now claimed 1/3rd share including creating any encumbrance or alienation in the form of lease or mortgage etc. , Is subject to result of the suit. (3) defendant 5 in the guise of construction till disposal of the suit shall - not encumber the suit schedule property in any way either to any financial institutions or other persons. These are the conditions imposed while rejecting the application for injunction. Condition No. 2 makes provision in respect of encumbrances or alienation in the form of lease or mortgage being subject to the result of the suit. This condition therefore permits creation of encumbrances. Therefore, condition No. 3 which prohibits the petitioner from creating the encumbrance in favour of institutions or other xxx persons is inconsistant with condition No. 2. The submission on behalf of the first respondent that condition No. 2 is in respect of past encumbrance and condition No. 3 is in respect of future encumbrance is without any basis. There is no such mention in the body of the order and condition No. 2 on the material available cannot be restricted to only past encumbrances. Therefore, condition No. 3 being inconsistant with condition No. 2 needs to be deleted by upholding the grievance of the petitioner. ( 7 ) CONDITION No. 6 imposed on the petitioner requires him to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000/- within a month from the date of the order as condition precedent for putting up construction. Other conditions imposed namely, condition No. 5 makes it clear that in the event of success of first respondent, petitioner shall not claim any equity against him. If that be so, one fails to understand the basis for requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,000/- as condition precedent for proceeding with the construction. Therefore, that condition is inconsistant with other conditions. In the result, revision petition succeeds and condition nos. 3 and 6 in the order dated 18-9-1991 rejecting i. a. No. Ii stand deleted. --- *** --- .