CRP 159/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. AD Ch oudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 39/2004 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division)), Bongaigaon has filed the present petition seeking to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Con stitution of India in challenging the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the learne d Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Bongaigaon dismissing the Misc. (A) Case No. 3/20 06 by upholding the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sen ior Division) Bongaigaon in Misc. (J) Case No. 38/2004 arising out of the suit w hereby and whereunder the said application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected. It appears from the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sen ior Division), Bongaigaon and also the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the learn ed Addl. District Judge, (FTC) in the aforesaid Misc. case that the learned cour ts below having found that there is no strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioners as well as the balance of convenience in their favour have refused t o pass the order of injunction. Both the learned courts below have dealt with in details the case as projected by the respective parties while refusing to grant the injunction. The scope of interference against the order refusing to grant injunction in exer cise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and to prevent miscarriage of justice. Since the learned cou rts below have recorded the reasons for refusing to grant injunction, I do not f ind any merit to interfere with the said order in exercise of the jurisdiction u nder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the revision petition stands dismissed. However, if any construction is made by the defendants over the suit land during the pendency of the suit and in the event the plaintiffs are successful in gett ing the decree which will put them into possession of the suit land they will al so be put in possession of the constructions, if any, made thereon. It also appears that the suit is pending since the year 2004. The learned Civil Judge therefore, shall make an endeavour to dispose of the sui t preferably within a period of six months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 24.1.2012. The revision petition stands dismissed. It is needless to say that while deciding the suit the court shall not be influe nced by the findings that has been recorded in the orders passed refusing the pr ayer to grant the temporary injunction.