CRP 323/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.2/2011 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon, by the present petition have sought to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Morigaon, in Misc. Appeal No.2/2011, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferre d by the present petitioners/plaintiffs refusing to grant the injunction by the learned Trial Court, has been dismissed. The present petitioners instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title, interest and also confirmation of possession of the Schedule-A la nd described in the plaint. The petitioners also challenged the sale deed No.384 4 of 1980, dated 21.07.1980 as illegal, inoperative and not binding on them cont ending inter alia that such a sale deed was never executed by them transferring the right, title and interest in respect of the Schedule-A land in favour of the defendants/ opposite parties. In the said suit an application under Order 39 Ru le 1 of the CPC was also filed praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants/ opposite parties to enter into the suit land for the purpose of cons tructing boundary wall around the Schedule-A land till disposal of the suit. The said application was registered and numbered as M.J. Case No.14/2011. Though the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 30.03.2011 while issuing notice on the prayer for injunction passed an ad-interim order directing the pa rties to maintain status quo. The said order was subsequently vacated, upon hear ing both the parties and upon consideration of the materials made available, vid e order dated 12.07.2011, which was put to challenge by the present petitioners in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal before the learned District Judge, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the present petition. I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It appears from the order dated 12.07.2011 as well as the order dated 25 .08.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, resp ectively, that upon taking into consideration the respective pleadings of the pa rties it was found that there is no strong prima facie case in favour of the pla intiffs/petitioners for the purpose of grant of injunction and the balance of co nvenience was also found to be in favour of the opposite parties/ defendants. Bo th the learned Courts below have noticed the admitted position that the possessi on of the land is with the defendants/opposite parties. The sale deed, which is sought to be declared as illegal and inoperative by the plaintiffs/petitioners w as also taken into consideration apart from the revenue receipts produced by the opposite parties before the learned Court below. The scope of interference of the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited. The jurisdiction under the said provision of law is to be i nvoked sparingly and to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse o f process of the Court. While exercising the jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as an Appellate Court over the order passed by the learned Court below, in the matter of granting or refusing injunction. Only self evident or patent error can be corrected by the High Court in exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. As noticed above, both the learned Courts below have discussed all the m aterials available while refusing to grant the injunction. That being the positi on, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the lear ned District Judge in Misc. Appeal No.2/2011 does not require any interference i n exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the revision petition is dismissed.