CRP 155/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr.A.M.Borbhuyan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Misc.Appeal No. 2/2010 affirming the judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned M unsiff No.1, Hailakandi in Misc.Case No. 28/2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 rea d with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the defendant No.2/ c ounter claimant of T.S.No. 3/2007. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, the learned appellate Cour t has affirmed and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby a nd where under, the learned trial Court dismissed the Misc.Case No. 28/2008 as m entioned hereinabove, praying for granting injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 holding that when possession over the suit land is claimed by both the pa rties, it is better not to interfere, when prima facie case, balance of convenie nce is not in favour of the petitioner. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials available on reco rd. While dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant, the learned a ppellate court, after perusal of the objection filed by the defendant/respondent as well as scrutinising the evidence adduced by the petitioner and related docu ments filed by the parties, in support of their claim, has come to the conclusio n that the petition for ad-interim injunction, filed by the petitioner lacks the three grounds i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience as well as irrepara ble loss and thereby rejected the injunction petition. Upon perusal of the materials available on record alongwith the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the judgment p assed by the learned appellate Court. Hence, the instant revision petition is fo und to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.