Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal and the revisional application being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment FMAT 4155/97 and C.O. 693/98 arise out of a judgment and order dated 19.4.97 passed by Shri S. Bagchi, Judge Third Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta whereby and whereunder the petitioners application for injunction was rejected.
(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The appellants/petitioners filed a suit against the respondents/opposite parties claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs : (a) a decree for a declaration that the defendants have no right to demolish the suit premises forcibly; (b) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the ,defendants from demolishing and/or causing damage to the suit premises fully described in the schedule hereunder written; (c) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from obstructing and/or interfering with effecting essential repairs to the suit premises;
(3.) Before adverting to the rival contentions raised before us, it is necessary to state the facts briefly.;