Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 and is directed against the judgment and order dated August 2, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.95 of 2007 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated March 5, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.261 of 2006. The plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.261 of 2006 against the petitioners and other opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Alipore for eviction on the ground of default and other reliefs. In that suit, the opposite parties filed an application or temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from making construction of commercial building by the sanctioned plan. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till disposal of the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.95 of 2007 and that misc. appeal was dismissed on contest with costs thereby affirming the order dated March 5, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question 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 plaintiffs have contended that the defendants are trying to make illegal construction by obtaining a second plan illegally. It is their specific contention that by the first plan, there was an open space and there was a provision for making underground water reservoir for storing water for the purpose of fire fighting as provided in the original plan. If the defendants are allowed to raise construction, on that open space, the plaintiffs’ easement rights would also be seriously prejudiced. Both the Courts below have come to the concurrent findings in this regard. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Courts below did not consider the balance of convenience and inconvenience in granting the injunction and also the fact as to which party is to suffer irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of Loucal Promoter Pvt. Ltd. & ors. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Courts below did not consider the balance of convenience and inconvenience in granting the injunction and also the fact as to which party is to suffer irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of Loucal Promoter Pvt. Ltd. & ors. v. Gautam Dudhoria & ors. reported in 2006 (2) CHN 138 . Both the Courts below have come to the findings that on purchase of a piece of land, sanctioned plan was obtained thereon on March 16, 2005 and then, the opposite parties constructed the building and possession of the residential flats were handed over to the respective owners. Some common space was left at the ground floor for the purpose already stated. Therefore, the plaintiffs have shown prima facie case to go for trial. If the order of status quo as granted by the Courts below is maintained, the balance of convenience will be in favour of the plaintiffs. Otherwise, if construction as alleged is raised, the flat owners will be in an inconvenient position and if they succeed, ultimately, it will be difficult for them to demolish the construction. The flat owners have the chance of suffer irreparable loss, if the alleged construction is allowed to be made on the basis of the second plan. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has also contended that there is a clause for arbitration and so, the suit is not maintainable and as such, the order of status quo cannot be supported. The impugned order should be vacated. Against this, the learned Advocate for the opposite parties submits that in order to seek the jurisdiction of arbitration, appropriate application under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to be filed and upon hearing both the sides, if there is an arbitration clause for settlement of the dispute, appropriate orders may be passed. But, in the instant case, save and except, in the agreement, with respect to the plaintiff no.5, there is no arbitration clause in respect of other agreements between the developers and the flat owners. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties has referred to the decision of Garden Finance Ltd. v. Prakash Inds. Ltd. & anr. But, in the instant case, save and except, in the agreement, with respect to the plaintiff no.5, there is no arbitration clause in respect of other agreements between the developers and the flat owners. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties has referred to the decision of Garden Finance Ltd. v. Prakash Inds. Ltd. & anr. reported in AIR 2002 Bombay 8 and Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya & anr. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 2209 to show how the matter is to be dealt with, there is a clause for arbitration and what are the principles to be governed in order to achieve success in the matter of injunction. It does not appear that up till now, any application under Sections 5 & 8 of the 1996 Act has been filed. So, if an application is filed, it shall be considered by the learned Trial Judge at the appropriate stage. At present, I do not find any scope for interference with the impugned order for the reasons stated above. This being the position, I am of the view that the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below on the basis of materials on record should not be disturbed in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.