JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner filed this revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order dated 2.9.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirohi in civil appeal No. 34/96 whereby he reversed the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by which the application filed by non-petitioner No. 3 was dismissed. 2. Chatra Ram plaintiff filed a suit against non-petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 in the trial Court on the allegations that defendants-non-petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 sold land of Khasra No. 171 to the defendant-petitioner and granted a patta on 12.10.1981. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 alienated the above land without storing fodder etc. The plaintiff has been using the above land for more than 40 years. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC it was also alleged by the plaintiff that the land comprised in Khasra No. 171 was also the land used as a way. For these reasons also defendant No. I could not have alienated the same in favour of the defendant No. 3-petitioner. The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was resisted by the non-petitioners Nos. 1 & 2. It was urged before him that an appeal was filed against the order of allotting patta to defendant No. 3 before the Collector and the same was allowed and the allotment of patta was set aside. The trial Court examined the case of the plaintiff with respect to find out whether a prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff and if was observed that the plaintiff could not produce any evidence that the land comprised in Khasra No. 171 was used for way. He further found that the Collector has not cancelled the patta. He also found no balance of convenience of the plaintiff. He, therefore, dismissed the above application. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court who by its order dated 2.9.1997 allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the land in dispute. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the impugned order. 4. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the impugned order. 4. It is a settled law that while exercising the appellate jurisdiction over an order passed on an application like an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. If the order of the trial Court is well reasoned and in accordance with law, no interference is required. It is only when the order suffers from perversity of law, interference could be made. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned appellate Court assumed that a way existed on the land comprised in Khasra No. 171. There is absolutely no evidence on which such an interference could be based. The trial Court pointed out this aspect of matter which was totally ignored by the learned appellate Court. The order of the learned appellate is, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional error and liable to be set aside. 5. For the above reasons, I accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the learned appellate Court and restore that of the learned trial Court. No orders as to costs.Revision allowed. *******