Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 21st March, 2002 passed in Title Suit No. 1465 of 2002 by the learned Judge, 7th Bench in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. By the judgment and order under appeal the learned Judge vacated the ad interim order of injunction which was passed on 30th August, 2000. By the order dated 30th August, 2000 the learned Judge, on the application of the plaintiff-appellant, granted an ad interim exparte order of injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from clearing the garbage on the common passage of the plaintiff and also from repairing the pipeline and the sewerage system.
(2.) Upon being served with the ad interim order of injunction, the respondent-bank filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 and thereafter the order under appeal was passed. Prior to the filing of this appeal, another appeal (FMAT No. 2943 of 2001) was filed at the instance of the Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said 'bank') before this Court. On the said appeal a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, by an order dated 5th September, 2000, directed the learned Trial Judge to hear out the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff as also the application under Order 39 Rule 4 filed by the respondent-bank. The learned Judge of the Division Bench also appointed an advocate of this Court the Special Officer and the learned Judge directed that under the supervision and control of the Special Officer, the plaintiff may remove the garbage from the passage in question and may also repair the pipeline and the sewerage lines if the same is existing and is repairable.
(3.) The above appointment of the Special Officer was made by the Court in view of a submission made before the previous Division Bench by the learned Counsel for the respondent-bank that under the garb of the impugned order the plaintiffs were trying to construct an underground reservoir. Thereupon the said Division Bench directed if the Special Officer finds out that the same is true, in that case, the Special Officer may stop that construction forthwith and the plaintiffs were directed to abide by the order of the Special Officer. However, the Special Officer in his report dated 15th September, 2000 permitted the plaintiff only to repair the water pipelines and the sewerage lines and made it clear that the plaintiff shall not replace the existing pipelines and sewerage lines but was only permitted to repair the same and the plaintiffs were permitted to remove the garbage lying in the passage in question.;