CRP 322/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 30.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc. Appeal No. 11/10. By this impugned judgment, the learned civil judge has rejected the appea l of the plaintiff for granting injunction and thereby affirmed the order of the trial court refusing to grant temporary injunction. Heard Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. Ko nwar, learned counsel has appeared for the respondents by way of filing caveat. The facts in brief are that a shop room was allotted in the name of the petitioner, Smti. Hema Baruah by the Assam Oil Division in a market area at Digboi. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into a partnership agreement with the respondents and as per the said partnership deed, the respondents were runn ing the business along with the petitioner. Thereafter, the partnership business was dissolved on 17.12.1992. Even thereafter, the respondents remained in posse ssion of the said shop room. Thereafter, the respondents were evicted. As a resu lt, the respondents herein filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief A ct being T.S. No. 3/03 and the said suit was decided in favour of the respondent s. Only thereafter, the present suit, being T.S. No. 8/09 was filed by the peti tioner, seeking a decree of right, title and interest over the shop room. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application fo r injunction and the said application was rejected by the trial court as well a s by appellate court. In my considered opinion, while examining the legality of an ord er, granting or refusing an injunction, the parameters of the revisional jurisd iction of the High Court as laid down under Section115 of the CPC, have to be ta ken into consideration, even if the revision petition is filed under the garb of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, neither it has been pleaded nor it is the case of the peti tioner that the impugned orders have been passed by the court having no jurisdic tion or the courts have failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Besides this, there is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to why the suit was not fi led promptly. At the same time, I am of the view that if the petitioner succeeds in the suit she may be compensated in terms of money. For the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly this revision petition stands dismissed.