WP(C) 6684/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. R. Deka, lear ned Standing counsel, Public Works Department, Government of Assam, appearing on respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Heard also Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. The controversy in the writ petition arises out of the proposed construc tion of a road by the PWD, Government of Assam. The petitioners instituted a su it, namely, Title Suit No. 13/2008, seeking declaration of their right, title an d interest over the plot of land, whereon the road is proposed to be constructed by the PWD, and also seeking mandatory injunction restraining and prohibiting t he defendants permanently and perpetually from constructing road on the said lan d. The petitioners also filed a Misc. application, in the Court of the Civil Ju dge, Nagaon, seeking temporary injunction, which gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 18/2008. By order, dated 01.08.2009, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 18/2008, lea rned Civil Judge, Nagaon, directed the parties to the suit to maintain status qu o as on the date of institution of the suit. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of In dia, the petitioners allege that the State respondents have engaged respondent N o. 7, as contractor, and, violating the interim directions, which had been passe d by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon, by order, dated 01.08.2009, aforementioned , asking the parties to maintain status quo, construction over the petitioners’ land (i.e., the suit land) has been started on 03.12.2010. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel, contends that a new cause of action has arisen as a result of the act of construction of the road, which the respondent No. 7 has started, and that amendment is required to be made in the plaint so as to incorp orate subsequent events and to seek appropriate relief(s), but filing of such an application for amendment, and disposal thereof, would take time inasmuch as th e Civil Judge, Nagaon, has been transferred out of Nagaon and the petitioners ha ve been left without any reliever. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that even if t he Civil Judge, Nagaon, has been transferred, the District Judge is, admittedly, available and an application for withdrawal of the said suit can be made in the Court of the District Judge and, upon withdrawal, any application can be made s eeking such amendment(s), as may be necessary, and/or such application for tempo rary injunction as may be required. The remedy, therefore, of the petitioners l ies in taking recourse to the appropriate provisions, contained in the Code of C ivil Procedure (in short, ’the CPC’), and not in invoking this Court’s power und er Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. As far as Article 227 i s concerned, it is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as there is no il legality, which has been committed by the learned Court below. So far as Articl e 226 is concerned, the same can also not be resorted to, when ample remedy to m eet the grievances of the petitioners is available under the scheme of the CPC. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not f ind that the writ petitioners have been able to make out any case warranting thi s Court’s exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same stands a ccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.