DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) POST commencement of trial the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint by way of the present application. Suit was for mandatory and perpetual injunction. The plaintiff claimed tenancy under the defendant in respect of 6,000 square feet in the second floor of a building situate at premises no. 25, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,700. The plaintiff averred that due to a fire in January 1, 1995 the building at the said premises was damaged. It also averred that the defendant was trying to cause prejudice to the plaintiff by seeking the assistance of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to demolish the building. The plaintiff sought to protect its tenancy. It sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore, repair and reconstruct the building and also sought perpetual injunction against the defendant from obstructing the reconstruction or the repair works and from constructing a different building.
(2.) APPARENTLY the building at said premises was in a dilapidated condition giving rise to two suits by two tenants. Another tenant of the said premises Vijaya Bank filed a suit being CS No. 170 of 1995. In such suit an order of status quo in respect of the said premises was passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court on December 2, 1997. In this suit the plaintiff applied for appointment of a receiver to find out the state of affairs of the premises in question. By the order dated February 23, 2012 passed in such application it was held that the apprehensions expressed by the plaintiff and reliefs sought for by the plaintiff were fully justified. However, no order was passed in view of the specific undertaking given by the defendant that there would be no change in the nature and character of the tenancy premises in question, namely, the subject matter of the suit, without the leave of the Court. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant through local hooligans caused extensive damage to the building at the said premises. In order to protect its rights, the plaintiff applied in September 2012 for diverse reliefs. Such application was disposed of by an order dated September 13, 2012 which directed that the existing status quo order and the undertaking given by the defendant as recorded in the order dated February 3, 2012 were to be strictly complied with.
(3.) THE appeal carried by the plaintiff from the order dated September 13, 2012 was disposed of by an order dated February 13, 2013. The judgment and order dated September 13, 2012 was affirmed with the modification that such order would not prejudice the statutory rights of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take steps as against the dilapidated building as it thought fit and proper. The parties were allowed to approach the Suit Court for listing the matter for hearing. Subsequent to February 13, 2013 the suit was not heard. In the suit evidence was adduced by the parties. After completion of evidence the plaintiff commenced arguments on January 7, 2007. The plaintiff concluded their arguments on March 25, 2010. According to the plaintiff the defendant obtained adjournments of the bearing of the suit on one pretext or the other and did not conclude their submissions.;