JUDGMENT : PRATAP KRISHNA LOHRA, J. 1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal to challenge order dated 10.08.2018, passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur. By the order impugned, learned trial Court rejected application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. 2. The facts, in brief, are that appellant and respondent are related to each other, inasmuch as, appellant is son-in-law of the respondent. It so happened that in the year 2006, vide registered sale-deed dated 24.03.2006, respondent purchased a property from one Sumitra Devi and as per version of the appellant, he was also having 1/3rd share in the property because he paid 1/3rd of the consideration amount. It is further pleaded that subsequently respondent executed an agreement to sale in favour of appellant for 1/3rd share from that property but later on refused to carry out his part of the contract. It is also pleaded in the plaint that appellant is in possession of part of the property and there is every likelihood that he may be dispossessed by the respondent. With these averments, prayer was made for grant of aforementioned relief. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is also filed, wherein temporary injunction is prayed by the appellant so as to restrain respondent from disturbing his possession on 1/3rd property. It is also prayed by the appellant that respondent be restrained from creating any hindrance in his endeavour to seek electricity connection for the premises in his possession. The application is contested by the respondent. 3. Learned trial Court heard arguments and proceeded to examine requisite three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. 4. Upon examining the recitals contained in sale-deed dtd. 24.03.2006 and subsequent agreement to sale, allegedly executed by the respondent in favour of appellant, learned trial Court has found the same prima facie incongruous in the backdrop of consideration amount mentioned therein. Finally, the learned trial Court observed that there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Likewise, the learned trial Court also examined two other ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, viz., balance of convenience and irreparable injury and found that both are not available to the appellant. 5. Finally, the learned trial Court observed that there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Likewise, the learned trial Court also examined two other ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, viz., balance of convenience and irreparable injury and found that both are not available to the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 6. There is no quarrel in the legal position that grant or refusal of temporary injunction is within the sole discretion of the Court of first instance and normally appellate Court is loathed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court of first instance. The scope of judicial review in an appeal, arising out of an order passed on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, is very much limited and the Court can interfere, if it is found that order is perverse or dehors the principles governing grant or refusal of temporary injunction. If the Court comes to a different conclusion, then what has been drawn by the learned trial Court in exercise of its discretion, the appellate Court is expected to substitute the same. The appeal against the order passed on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is an appeal on principle and therefore cannot be equated with the regular first appeal. 7. In totality, in my view, learned trial Court, while refusing the injunction, has not exercised its discretion perversely or arbitrarily and consequently, I feel disinclined to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.