JUDGMENT SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J. Challenge in this application is against the judgment dated 20th May, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri (hereinafter referred to as the Court of Appeal below) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2(1) of 2014 whereby the Court of Appeal below set aside the order No. 17 dated 23rd December, 2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri in Title Suit No. 53 of 2013. Chronology leading to the instant case is that the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction as consequential relief with a prayer for decree of declaration that the Plaintiff No. 1 and its members have right, title and interest over all the vacant space including the Front Lawn and all common facilities and amenities within the Residency and that the defendant No. 1 has no right to assign the said vacant space of Front Lawn to the defendant No. 2 and further prayed for injunction forbidding the defendant No. 1 and 2 from changing the nature and character of the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for decree for cancellation of Registered Deed of Assignment being No. 11220 for the year 2012 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to restore the area demarcated as Front Lawn of the Residency as it was as per the proposal of brochure and site plan of the Deed of Assignments and for other residency. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction on contest by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of nature and character of the suit property as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as well as injunction application till the disposal of the suit, which order was set aside by the learned Court of Appeal below by the Judgment impugned. The opposite party No. 2 Luxmi Township Limited acquired leasehold right over an area of land admeasuring 393.25 acres situated within Mouza Gourcharan, J.L. No. 81, Mouza Baragharia, J.L. No. 82 and Mouza Ujuanu, J.L. No. 86 under the Police Station of Matigara, District Darjeeling from the Government of West by a registered indenture of lease and obtained approval of the SJDA and developed the said 393.25 acres of land and divided the said land into various plots with infrastructural facilities for setting up Uttorayon Township and identified an area measuring 10.59 acres out of 393.25 acres of land for construction of a building complex comprising twelve multi-storeyed buildings in three Phases viz. Phase I comprising five buildings, Phase II comprising three buildings and Phase III comprising four buildings. The opposite party No. 2 completed construction of the building in Phase I and Phase II. Thereafter, by a registered deed of assignment recorded in Book No. 1, CD Volume No. 48, Pages 2141 to 2177 being No. 11220 for the year 2012, the opposite party No. 2 assigned its leasehold rights including the right to construct the structures in terms of the lease to the opposite party No. 1 in terms of the parent deed of lease, after obtaining due permission from the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling under Memo No. 412/Special (Cell)/11 dated 12th November, 2012. The opposite party No. 1 commenced construction work of the balance structures in the project upon obtaining a sanctioned plan from the competent authority over the land measuring 1.88 acres after delivery of possession on 16th November, 2012, when the opposite party No. 1 developed the said land for construction but petitioner did not raise any objection thereto. On 17th April, 2013, when the opposite party No. 1 had completed substantial construction up to the plinth level, the petitioners filed the instant suit. According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, on 17th March, 2009 vide order No. 3753 SJDA, namely Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority, the defendant No. 3/opposite party No. 3 herein sanctioned a plan for a residential complex on the said 10.59 Acres consisting of a front lawn, 12 residential buildings and several amenities including open lawns, greenery, roads, basket ball court, car parking spaces etc. The front lawn as indicated in the said plan is on the front side of the entire residential complex and faces the main arterial road of the township and that the sanctioned plan or the deed of conveyance do not refer to any separate phases. The sanctioned plan is of the 12 towers and therefore the front lawn is the front lawn for the entire residential complex. Thereafter the defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 brought out a fresh brochure incorporating the said sanction plan dated 17.3.2009. The residents of the residential complex/residency were provided with this brochure only. The defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 for its own convenience decided to construct the 12 towers of the said residential complex/residency in three phases, namely 5 towers in Phase I, 3 towers in Phase II and 4 towers in Phase III. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in or about February, 2012 two of the residents/flat owners namely Dr. Asif Iqbal Hussain and Anil Sahu, since deceased, noticed that the defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 was uprooting trees and tilling the front lawn. In protest, they filed a suit against the defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 herein being Title Suit No. 39 of 2012 before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri, District: Darjeeling. It is alleged by the petitioner that in or about March, 2013 suddenly the defendant No. 1 started demolition of the front lawn and a wall was constructed on the said front lawn. The residents having formed an association on 29th November, 2012, authorized the association and its secretary to institute the instant suit on their behalf and include the third party as defendant therein. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no intention to stop the defendants/opposite parties from constructing the remaining 4 towers in terms of the plan of 2009 ensuring the sanctity of Front Lawn and other common facility as enshrined in the said plan. The defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 has no absolute right over the common areas of the residential complex having alienated with un-apportioned right of the same by the deeds of assignment of 340 numbers of residents. It is urged on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that the common area does not belong to the assignees. The defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 has no absolute right over the common areas of the residential complex having alienated with un-apportioned right of the same by the deeds of assignment of 340 numbers of residents. It is urged on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that the common area does not belong to the assignees. Petitioners submit that the defendant No. 1 through the deed of conveyance has conferred right, title and interest on the common area over undivided proportionate land share on the entire 10.59 acres and accordingly, it is pointed out by the petitioner that the schedule to the plaint rightfully describes the common areas of the entire 10.59 acres of the residential complex as the reliefs sought primarily affects the entire of the said land and also because of the right of the residents flows from their proportionate undivided land share on the entire of 10.59 acres and rights thereof. The petitioners have relied upon brochures annexed to different deeds of assignment in their favour to demonstrate the breach of commitment of the defendant No.1/opposite party No. 2 and contends that the Learned Appellate Court failed to pass a reasoned order and also failed to deal with the order of the Learned Trial Court. No reference has been made to the ratio of the Learned Trial Court’s order or any issue raised therein. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned judgment of the Learned Appellate Court is in contravention of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is contended that the Learned Judge in the first appellate court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while allowing the appeal of the opposite party No. 1 without appreciating that the plan sanctioned by the SJDA, plan as shown in the brochures and site plan as annexed with the Deeds of Assignment, were all identical and each of the plan had a common open space almost in the centre showing a lawn/green area i.e. the front lawn. The Learned Judge in the first appellate court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that at the time of executing deeds of assignment in favour of mega builders crores of rupees was handed over in favour of Luxmi Township as consideration and if the construction is remained stopped the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the contrary if the construction is allowed to be started keeping all other amenities, common areas, benefits open to the flat owners the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not suffer any loss or injury. Accordingly considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience it appears that it is in favour of the appellant who are suffering havoc on each day due to the injunction granted against it by the impugned order in spite of the absence of factual and legal handless without appreciating that the opposite party No. 2 sold the common area i.e. the front lawn to the opposite party No. 1 from the said residential project sanctioned by the SJDA without the permission of the apartment owners and in violation of the provisions laid down in The West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979. The West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and The West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 and moreover by allowing the opposite party No. 1 to construct on the said land, the appellate court has accepted the purported transfer which is absolutely illegal and dehors the statutory provisions of Section 3(a), 3(d)(1), 3(d)(1), Section 5 of the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act 1972. On behalf of the petitioners it is pointed out that the site plan annexed with the Deeds of Assignment of the Phase I do not have any contradiction or disparity with the site plan annexed with the Deeds of Assignment of the Phase II. The land schedules in the Phase I deed and Phase II deed are identically similar, the subsequent sanctioned plan issued by the SJDA in favour of the opposite party No. 1 having a different site plan altogether. The land schedules in the Phase I deed and Phase II deed are identically similar, the subsequent sanctioned plan issued by the SJDA in favour of the opposite party No. 1 having a different site plan altogether. By filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C. P. Code the plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for an order of temporary/ad interim injunction restraining the defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 2 from constructing any structure in the arrear of land measuring 10.59 acres known as the Uttorayon Residency described in the schedule to the application and so also to the plaint on the overt act alleging that the entire Front Lawn was demolished where it has been noticed that construction work has been commenced upon the land demarcated as Front Lawn and the remaining land of the Uttorayon encroaching the entire Front Lawn leaving almost no space in front of the existing buildings. The injunction application was contested by the defendant/opposite parties herein with the averment that the defendant No. 1 had acquired valuable leasehold rights admittedly in respect of the entire huge area of land for the purpose of construction and development and/or facilitation of the satellite township called Uttorayon Township. And it was well within its rights to allot separate blocks/plots to intending assignees so as to facilitate the intending assignees to carry on construction in tune with the spirit of the development of the satellite township. Such right of the defendant no. 1 was subject to Governmental permission which, in the case of the defendant no. 2, has been duly obtained. In so far as the Residency is concerned, the same is only a small part of the entire satellite township. Two out of three proposed phases of construction of the Residency were made by the defendant no. 1. Brochures were printed and circulated where intending allottees of flats/apartments were invited to place their applications. It was clearly mentioned in each brochure that the features and benefits proposed therein are preliminary and subject to finalization. It is contended by the defendant No. 1 that the opposite parties reserved all rights to make such changes as they deem proper and the brochures were declared as representative document of the concept and not a document creating binding rights and obligations between the parties. It is contended by the defendant No. 1 that the opposite parties reserved all rights to make such changes as they deem proper and the brochures were declared as representative document of the concept and not a document creating binding rights and obligations between the parties. On contested hearing, learned Trial Court passed an order of status quo in respect of the nature and character of property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint till the disposal of the suit. This order of status quo passed by the learned Trial Court was challenged in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2014 before the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri, which has been allowed on contest, by setting aside the order of temporary injunction Order No. 17 dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Suit No. 53 of 2013. On being aggrieved by the order impugned passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2(1) of 2014, the present revisional application has been filed under the scheme of Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian. Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has invited my attention to the admitted facts by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the plaint contending that they admitted that the entire project comprises of twelve buildings. Before taking allotment of the residential flat the opposite party No. 2 had put advertisement and proposal before the intending purchasers showing the entire details of the flats including common areas, facilities and amenities in the form of brochure. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the front lawn shown in the brochure was also shown in the site plan annexed with the deed of assignment which is an essential common amenity of the residents of the Residency. It has also been alleged that the front lawn amongst other portions were illegally sold to the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is making construction on the front lawn. The petitioners have also alleged that the site plan of the Residency contains a front lawn which is shown in the brochure as also shown in the site plan in the deeds of assignment. On this score the petitioners have filed the suit substantially for restraining the opposite party No. 1 from raising any construction on the area of the front lawn and on other common areas of Uttorayon Residency. On this score the petitioners have filed the suit substantially for restraining the opposite party No. 1 from raising any construction on the area of the front lawn and on other common areas of Uttorayon Residency. In the second fold argument Mr. Mukherjee submits that there is no objective description of the area or location of the front lawn shown in the plaint and in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P. Code to enforce an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. The schedule of the plaint is vague inasmuch as it refers to a front lawn and other common areas and facility without mentioning the location or area of the front lawn or the location and area of the alleged common area and facility over which the petitioners claim their rights on the basis of the brochure by making the representation as if there was/is a uniform single brochure for all the flats/apartments. It is submitted that there is no front lawn within 1.887 acres of land held by the opposite party No. 1 on which the construction is being made in terms of the sanctioned plan. Report of the learned Advocate Commissioner clearly shows that there is a green area within the Residency beyond the boundary wall and road and there is no such front lawn revealed from the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners would suffer the most if the illegal construction of multi-storied building is allowed to continue as the general public after being interested and allured by eco friendly environment of the Residency booked flats in the Phase II of the project and paid valuable consideration against allotment of the flats and Deeds of Assignment were registered in their favour. I am not in agreement with this argument in view of the fact that the common facilities and common areas as provided in the deeds of assignments of the flat owners and members of the petitioners’ Association are not in any way disturbed by the construction of the township to be raised by the opposite party No. 1 because more than 80% are green areas which is well depicted from the report of learned Commissioner for inspection. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 contended that that there is no specific description in the plaint and therefore no injunction can be sought. In support of his argument reference to a judgment in Saroj Kumar Karmakar vs. Sanjib Koley and Other, being C.O. No. 2423 of 2010 has been made wherein it has been observed that— “The portion of the plaintiff being not specifically described, if the injunction, as prayed for is granted, the co-owners will be affected and they are likely to commit violation of order of injunction so multiplicity of suit/proceeding is likely to occur. Therefore, on the basis of the schedule of the suit property, as described in the plaint, I am of the view that the learned Court below were justified in refusing the prayer for temporary injunction.” On behalf of the opposite party No. 2 Laxmi Township Limited, it is argued that order of injunction as prayed for is against the defendant No. 2/opposite party No. 1 herein and not against his client. The total area of the land is 363.25 acres out of that area measuring 10.59 acres of the township is of High Income Group (HIG). The opposite party No.2 has constructed Phase I and Phase II the Residency in total area of 7.67 acres of land leaving balance of 2.92 acres of land out of which opposite party No. 2 assigned an area of about 1.887 acres to opposite party No. 1/Mega Builders and the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to build on the balance area of 1.033 acres without interference as no injunction was sought for against opposite party No. 2. The deed of assignment between Laxmi Township assignor and Atanu Banerjee as the assignee appears at page 83 of the petition. In paragraph 21 at page 99 it recites— “The assignee admits that all common areas, services and facilities such as roads, water system, drainage, garbage disposal, landscape, sewerage treatment plant and sewerage system etc. in the Uttorayon Township shall remain the property of the Assignor.” Thus it is submitted that Laxmi Township is the owner of the property of all common areas and that being the case, there cannot be any right left with the petitioners to seek an order of injunction. in the Uttorayon Township shall remain the property of the Assignor.” Thus it is submitted that Laxmi Township is the owner of the property of all common areas and that being the case, there cannot be any right left with the petitioners to seek an order of injunction. A serious question is raised as to the identity of the suit property over which the injunction cannot be enforced. In consideration of the description of the property in the schedule to the plaint and the application for injunction, this Court finds that the identity of the suit property is not carved out properly and injunction cannot be granted over the entire land of 10.59 acres within which Residency apartments are situated as it will create a confusion in a mind of the parties and will be subjected to violation by the parties to the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended in his written note of arguments that the plaintiffs or its members have no intention to stop the defendants from constructing the remaining 4 towers subject to the adherence to the plan of 2009 and ensuring the sanctity of Front Lawn and other common facility as enshrined in the said plan of 2009. It is pointed out that the defendant No. 2 has no absolute right over the common areas of the residential complex having alienated with un-apportioned right of the same by the deeds of assignment of 340 numbers of residents. Now, at this juncture the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has contended that there has been fraudulent suppression and/or material misrepresentation by the petitioner No. 1 and 2 by alleging as if there was a single representative brochure and identical Deeds of Assignments for all the members. In reality, it appears that there were different brochures for different phases of the construction. In the first building, there was no mention whatsoever of any front lawn. This first brochure catered to the five buildings constituting Phase I of the project (As placed at page-738 and 733). In the second brochure, a front lawn is shown at Page Nos. 790 and 795 of the Informal Paper Book. In the first building, there was no mention whatsoever of any front lawn. This first brochure catered to the five buildings constituting Phase I of the project (As placed at page-738 and 733). In the second brochure, a front lawn is shown at Page Nos. 790 and 795 of the Informal Paper Book. It is pointed out at different stages, different types of Deeds of Assignments conferred different rights which can be proved from the Deed of Assignment dated 25.3.2013 of one Suresh Arya, the second schedule refers to the area describing the total area to be admeasuring 8.703 acres as revealed from Page No. 890 starting Page No. 880 of the Informal Paper Book whereas in the Deed of Assignment dated 22.4.2010 of one Ankit Surana and Jitendra Surana, the second schedule refers to the area describing the total area to be admeasuring 10.59 acres. It is depicted at Page No. 922 starting at Page No. 912 of the Informal Paper Book and in yet another Deed of Assignment dated 5.9.2013 of one Brig. Amar Kumar Chatterjee the second schedule refers to the area describing the total area to be admeasuring 7.67 acres. Accordingly, it is submitted that there has been incorrect statement made by the petitioners to allege that all the brochures show a front lawn or that the Association has a homogeneous cause of action for bringing the instant suit. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 fortified his argument with submission that axiomatically, those occupiers of the flats of Phase I of the project cannot even contend that the front lawn was shown in the brochure. There is, therefore, a heterogeneous cause of action and the association has acted fraudulently by seeking to represent as if there was a uniform representation in all the brochures and identical Deeds of Assignment were executed by and between the opposite party No. 2 and the members of the petitioner No.1. It is emphatically submitted by the opposite party No. 1 that brochure and site plan cannot create any interest over immovable property and the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of any brochure or site plan or prior sanction plan. It is emphatically submitted by the opposite party No. 1 that brochure and site plan cannot create any interest over immovable property and the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of any brochure or site plan or prior sanction plan. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, transfer of ownership can take place by means of sale against the consideration which is comprised or paid or part comprised or part paid at the time of such sale. It would be depicted from Page 1483 of the Informal Paper Book relating to brochure of Phase II that it contained the clear and unequivocal caveat that— “The features and benefits proposed at the layout and building plans, specifications of the buildings/complex, apartments, proposed at Uttorayon. The Residency Phase II are preliminary and subject to finalization. Though no effort will be spared to carry them out, Luxmi Township Limited may effect such variations, additions, alterations, deletions and/or modifications therein as it may, at its sole discretion deem appropriate and fit, or as may be directed by any competent authority.” It is submitted that the forth schedule mentions common areas, facilities, amenities and portions of the Residency but that does not mention any front lawn and this fact is depicted at Pages 869, 892 and 924 of Volume III of Paper Book. The fifth schedule refers to common portions of Uttorayon Township as a whole and does not refer to the Residency. The sixth schedule specifically excluded certain portions from the common areas, spaces and amenities available in the Residency. All open spaces including the open spaces adjacent to Club premises, open spaces adjacent to the building and other open spaces have been expressly excluded from the areas, spaces and amenities by operation of the sixth schedule. Under Clause 14 of the assignees covenant and as well as Clause 12 of the seventh schedule it has been specifically mentioned as under:- “Not to claim any right, title and interest of any nature whatsoever over and in respect of the excluded portions i.e. those areas, amenities and spaces as more fully described in the sixth Schedule hereunder written.” It is further pointed out that more than 80% open space have been retained in the complex. It would appear from the order impugned that the learned Court of Appeal below has correctly applied the decision reported in 2009 (12) SCC 776 as apposite to the case wherein it has been observed thus: “It is well settled that when construction has been made on a land which is of considerable magnitude and when the plaintiff shall not face any considerable injury if no order of injunction is granted because all payment/deposit of entire amount payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff made though belatedly, we are of the view that the Court will not, as a matter of course, pass an order of injunction against other party restraining the other party from raising any construction on the suit property till the disposal of the suit.” In Paragraph-18 of the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that— “On the other hand in our view, if at this stage an order of injunction is granted against the Respondent/Defendant from proceeding with construction of the suit property it will undoubtedly destroy the construction already made by the Respondent/Defendant and the Respondent/Defendant will suffer irreparable loss and injury for not allowing them to make construction on the suit property.” It appears from the order impugned that the learned Court of Appeal below appraising the materials on record was of the finding that there was completion of substantial part of the construction in the case of above cited judgment whereas in the present case, the construction has been made up to the plinth level but the fact remains that at the time of execution of Deed of Assignment in favour of the Mega Builders, crores of rupees was given to Laxmi Township as consideration by Mega Builders and if the construction is stopped the present opposite parties shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the contrary, if the construction is allowed to continue keeping all other amenities, common areas, benefits open to the flat owners as per their Deeds, the petitioners shall not suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by money value. In a situation like this, two questions arise in the judicial mind for consideration at this stage are:- Where did the balance of convenience lie? In a situation like this, two questions arise in the judicial mind for consideration at this stage are:- Where did the balance of convenience lie? Was it desirable that the status quo should be maintained or was it right that defendants should be allowed to continue to raise construction of multistoried building over the land as per the sanctioned plan? In this case, substantial portion of land has been utilized by construction of Phase I and Phase II consisting of 8 high rise buildings by the defendant/opposite party No. 2 herein. Now, the defendant No. 2/opposite party No. 1 has been assigned to carry out the construction of Phase III consisting of four high rise buildings which are to be carried out as per the sanction plan. Therefore, if a temporary injunction in the form of status quo is allowed to continue, it will not benefit the plaintiffs/petitioners but cause injury to the defendants since a considerable amount has been spent for development of the land and construction of the buildings as per sanction plan, which will remain unprofitable and will cause cost escalation which will lead to increase in the cost of the flats as a result, prospective buyers may not be in a position to buy the flats at escalated price. In anxious consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, it appears to me that the petitioners’ claim is limited to the front lawn as shown in the brochure which attracted them to buy the flats in Phase I and Phase II as alleged but such a document cannot be a composite document giving right to the plaintiffs inasmuch as no such lawn has been described in the deeds of assignment of the members of the plaintiffs’ association. Ergo, prima facie, balance of convenience and inconvenience tilts in favour of the defendants/ opposite parties. That apart, no part and portion of the land has been carved out in the schedule to the plaint describing the specified area of front lawn. As I have discussed in the foregoing paragraph that the identity of the Front lawn in question is also in dispute. It is clenched position of law that plaintiff must indicate the identity of the portion of land claimed by him either by means of boundaries or by means of a map. As I have discussed in the foregoing paragraph that the identity of the Front lawn in question is also in dispute. It is clenched position of law that plaintiff must indicate the identity of the portion of land claimed by him either by means of boundaries or by means of a map. In the absence of such indication as required by provision of Order 7 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, it is not possible to pass an order of injunction capable of execution. In a situation like this the defendants would be prejudiced. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Zarif Ahmed (D) through LRs. and Another vs. Md. Farooq, 2015 AIR (SCW) 1190 : AIR 2015 SC 1236 in which case suit property was not only described in the plaint with the boundaries but also by the municipal number, and by giving its description in the plaint map. In such case it was held that the suit property was identifiable. But in the present case the front lawn as claimed by the plaintiffs has not been described in the plaint schedule even by showing a map. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties have contended that the petitioners cannot challenge the judgment of the lower Court of Appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the scope of powers exercisable are limited and it cannot be exercised as Appellate power in disguise. It is pointed out that merely because a different conclusion may be arrived from the materials on record the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with the order under challenge and supported his contention by referring to the decisions reported in Waryam Singh and Another vs. Amarnath and Another, AIR 1954 SC 215 ; Nagendra Nath Bora and Another vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, AIR 1958 SC 398 and Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotir and Others vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aher, (2000) 3 SCC 190 . The learned Counsel for the petitioners on the contrary submits that the cited decisions do not preclude the petitioners from filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioners on the contrary submits that the cited decisions do not preclude the petitioners from filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion and Construction of Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 is applicable to the instant case and referring to the provision of Section 12A of the Act the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred to entertain or decide any question relating to matters arising under any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and has further fortified his argument relying on a decision of Naresh Chandra Ghosh vs. Biswajit Lahiri, AIR 2006 Calcutta 95 : 2006 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 435. In my considered view provision of the Act do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the nature of the suit. It would appear that an application for rectification of certain factual errors in the order dated 14th August, 2014 passed by a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court has been sought to be rectified by the opposite party No. 2 by filing a C.A.N. No. 5357 of 2015 but a judicial order passed by this Hon’ble Court cannot be rectified in the manner prayed for by the opposite party No. 2 because it does not relate to a mere correction of the Court’s order rather substantial modification of the order which cannot be allowed as the order passed by the Court is either revisable or appealable. Therefore, the application vide C.A.N. No. 5357 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. In the context of my discussion in the forgoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the learned Court of Appeal below has rightly passed the order impugned and warrants no interference as to its findings. Accordingly, the C.O. No. 2678 of 2014 is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs with direction upon the learned Trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit on trial as expeditious as possible without being influenced by any observation made in body of this Judgment. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, he supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.