JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the order passed by the appellate Court (Annexure P/9) thereby selling aside the order of injunction granted in favour of the petitioner by the trial Court against the respondents 1 and 2. The learned appellate Court in paras 16 and 17 of the order (Annexure P/9) has discussed elaborately the material and the documents available on record as also the effect of the order of Civil Court, passed in a separate civil suit, which was filed by one Dr. Usha Mishra against the respondents in respect or the disputed land and found that the disputed road (land) did not remain available for its use since the year 1981, as the respondents 1 and 2 had raised the construction thereon in the year 1981 itself. It has been further found by the appellate Court that the averments made by the petitioner/plaintiff in his plaint that the respondents want to raise the construction on the road were not borne out from the record, but were rather against the record. When the said road was closed in the year 1981 by the respondents as they had raised the construction, there was no question of any obstruction to be caused on the road. Thereafter, the Commissioner, who was appointed by the Court in the abovesaid suit of Dr. Usha Mishra, found on inspecting the spot in the year 1981 that the walls had been raised upto good height, though the roof was not laid. The Court had directed the respondents in that suit to raise the construction in such a manner that the use of windows of the house of Dr. Usha Mishra was not obstructed. The respondents have stated to have further raised the construction. The respondents' case is that since the permission for construction of the house was valid for one year, and the said period had expired before the total construction could be completed due to the litigation between them and Dr. Usha Mishra, they started the remaining construction after obtaining the permission afresh and in view of the above fact, the learned appellate Court has found that now injuncting the respondents from raising the further construction in the present suit filed in the year 1993, would result in irreparable loss to them. Usha Mishra, they started the remaining construction after obtaining the permission afresh and in view of the above fact, the learned appellate Court has found that now injuncting the respondents from raising the further construction in the present suit filed in the year 1993, would result in irreparable loss to them. The learned appellate Court arrived at the findings of fact on the appropriation of the documents on record. There is no perversity in those findings nor any error of jurisdiction, illegality or irregularity has been committed by the appellate Court in passing the impugned order. There exists no immediate cause in the abovestated circumstances for the issuance of an order of injunction against the respondents. In view of the above, the petition has no substance, and is, therefore, dismissed.