- (1.) Can 9260 of 2016 In this application, the appellants in the second appeal, claiming to be the tenants of the suit property have alleged that the respondents have stopped supply of water to the suit property. Copies of this application were served only on the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. M.C. Ghosh appeared for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) According to Mr. Ghosh, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not interfered with the supply of water to the suit property. Mr. Ghosh, however, submitted that since the building comprising the suit property is an old building, there may be some problem with the pipeline and the respondents are ready to engage a plumber to check the condition of the present pipeline of the building. He further submitted if, the plumber finds any problem in the pipeline of the building, the appellant should be directed to pay necessary costs for repairing the pipelines.
(3.) In view of such submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, hearing of this application is adjourned till September 20,2016. In the meantime, the plaintiffs-respondents shall engage a plumber to ascertain whether the pipeline of the building leading up to the suit property requires any repairing or not.;