EIH LIMITED Vs. JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.85 dated December 13, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No.61 of 2005 thereby allowing the application dated June 16. 2010 filed by the plaintiff and the application dated October 6, 2010 filed by the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff/petitioner instituted a Title Suit No.61 of 2005 praying for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. In that suit, the defendant appeared. It is carrying on a business in the shop room in suit as a tenant under the plaintiff. The defendant / opposite party wanted to repair/renovate the said shop room and for that reason, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. In that suit, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta passed an order in F.M.A.T. No.505 of 2005 thereby directing that an inspection of the said shop room should be done by a commissioner. He should submit report thereafter. The defendant was at liberty to make construction. Then, after completion of the repairing/renovation work, another inspection was to be held by the same commissioner and he should submit report. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant filed an application with regard to the repair and both the petitions were disposed of by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up with this application.

(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.