- (1.) THE judgment of the Court was as follows:- The matter can be disposed of on a fundamental premise and it is surprising that neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court cared to look into the reliefs claimed in the plaint while granting the interlocutory order and affirming the same in appeal.
(2.) IT is basic that the scope of an interlocutory application and the nature of order that can be passed at the interlocutory stage are governed by the frame of the suit and the nature of the reliefs claimed therein. If no final relief has been claimed in respect of a matter, no interlocutory order in respect thereof may be passed. This is elementary and it is unfortunate that such a rudimentary rule has to be repeated for the benefit of the trial Court and the Additional District Judge involved in this matter.
(3.) THE petitioner herein is the third defendant in a suit. It is the undisputed position that the third defendant purchased a part of a property in Serampore from the plaintiff. The bone of contention is the entrance and exit door and the staircase on the southern side of the building.;