Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the Order No.22 dated November 30, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.454 of 2008 thereby dismissing the misc. appeal arising out of an order dated August 18, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore thereby dismissing the Misc. Case No.38 of 2006. The short fact is that the plaintiffs / appellants instituted a suit being Title Suit No.31 of 2002 against the opposite parties for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. The learned Trial Judge granted several adjournments and thereafter, the date was fixed for recording evidence again on July 3, 2006, when the plaintiffs again prayed for adjournment. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on that day. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a misc. case being Misc. Case No.38 of 2006 under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. Both the parties to the misc. case have adduced evidence. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the misc. case on contest without costs. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.454 of 2008 and the Appellate Court dismissed the said misc. appeal also on contest without costs. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the relevant date is July 3, 2006 when the suit was dismissed. The ground of dismissal is that several opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to file evidence by way of affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., but the plaintiffs did not file the same. From the materials on record, it appears that the several opportunities were given to the petitioners previously, such as on March 2, 2006, May 17, 2006. The contention is that their conducting Senior Lawyer, namely, Mr. Timir Baran Banerjee could not prepare the affidavit for want of time. From the materials on record, it appears that the several opportunities were given to the petitioners previously, such as on March 2, 2006, May 17, 2006. The contention is that their conducting Senior Lawyer, namely, Mr. Timir Baran Banerjee could not prepare the affidavit for want of time. Another ground is that the plaintiff no.3 was the tadbirkar of the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs and that his father and uncle were ill at the relevant time. But I find that his father was ill not for one day but for five months prior to the date of July 3, 2006 and his uncle was admitted to Bangur Institute of Neurology. The opposite party has decided such contention. The learned Trial Judge has denied the evidence on record and come to a conclusion that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was not acceptable. The appellate court has also held the same view. Thus, I find that both the Courts below have come to the concurrent views on the basis of materials on record. This is not a case that the impugned order cannot be supported for want of evidence. This is also not a second appeal but an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. On perusal of the materials, it appears that the impugned order does not suffer from perversity. Accordingly, I am of the view that the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, based on evidence, should not be interfered with in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. This revisional application fails to succeed. It is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.