IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11524 of 2011 Amar Nath Singh Versus Akhilesh Singh & Ors ----------- 02. 19.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the 3rd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Misc. Appeal No.60 of 2010 whereby the learned Court below dismissed the Misc. Appeal and confirmed the order of injunction passed by the trial Court,i.e., Munsif III, Chapra in Title Suit No.87 of 2004 dated 07.10.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of injunction order passed by the trial Court, the construction which was going on has been stopped and because of that petitioner shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury. Be that as it may, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the appellant Court has confirmed order passed by the learned trial Court. Both the Courts below found that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent. It further appears that the learned 2 counsel has also referred the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 Supreme Court 104= 2005 (1) P.L.J.R. 268. In view of the above fact, it cannot be said that the impugned order is either arbitrary or illegal or that the Court below have passed the impugned order in utter disregard of any law, nor it can be said that the order is capricious. Thus in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order warrants no interference. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. The trial Court, if possible, may expedite the hearing of the suit. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)