JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No.04/2023 whereby the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.136/2022 by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon (for shot, ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No.183/2021. 3. This Court has duly perused the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court had granted a temporary injunction thereby restraining the petitioners herein from making any alienation of the Schedule-A land or for making any further construction over the Schedule-A land as mentioned in the plaint during the pendency of the Title Suit. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners therein had filed an Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal No.04/2023. The learned First Appellate Court having duly taken note of the three golden principles for grant of an injunction and being in conformity with the observations made by the learned Trial Court affirmed the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.136/2022 by the learned Trial Court. It is under such circumstances, the present application has been filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Upon hearing the learned counsels and upon perusal of the materials on record, more particularly the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, it transpires that the Court at the first instance after duly applying the three golden principles for grant of an injunction had granted the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that the defendants, i.e. the petitioners herein shall not alienate the suit property as described in Schedule-A to the plaint as well as also shall not raise any construction. The learned First Appellate Court had also duly taken note of the three golden principles for grant of an injunction and had confirmed the findings passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court in granting the injunction. This Court further made a pointed query upon Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as to whether the petitioners intend to alienate the Schedule-A property as well as to raise construction. Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not taking such steps to alienate the Schedule-A property as well as to raise any construction. He, however, submitted that the petitioners herein are posed with a threat from the plaintiffs/respondents herein to dispossess the petitioners. He, therefore, submitted that certain order be passed directing maintenance of the status-quo by this Court. 7. This Court having given an anxious consideration is of the opinion that as the petitioners herein are not contemplating of alienating the Schedule-A land as well as are also not contemplating to raise any construction, the petitioners therefore do not have any grievance against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed vide the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 8. As regards the prayer made by Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that an order of status- quo be passed by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that such order cannot be passed by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as the jurisdiction is limited in the present proceedings in a much as the present proceedings arise out of an order whereby the Appellate Court had affirmed the injunction order. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioners herein, if so advised, would be at liberty to file an application seeking appropriate injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned Trial Court, and if such application is filed, the learned Trial Court shall duly consider the same in accordance with law. 10. With the above, the instant petition stands disposed of.