ORDER
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
1. The sixteen plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 352 of 2002 filed the suit in this Court against the twelve defendants on July 24th 2002. The plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs :-
'The plaintiffs pray for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and claims :-
(a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 11. their men, agents. servants and assigns from interfering with and/or invading the plaintiffs right title and interest in the various portions of the premises No. 33A, Jawhar Lal Nehru Road. Calcutta, 700 071 morefully stated in Annexure-'B' hereto.
(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 11, their men, agents servants and assigns from invading any part of the common areas of the building at the said premises the Voltas air conditioning plaint situated in the basement in an area of 800 sq. ft. approx and the cooling tower on the roof as also the ducts connecting the Voltas air conditioning plant with the cooling tower.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 11, 12 their men, agents, servants and assigns from demolishing and/or removing in any manner whatsoever the cooling tower situated on the roof and the Voltas air conditioning in the basement of the said premises No. 33A Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta 700 071.
(d) The interim report of the Expert committee of the defendant No. 12 to the extent it recommends front entrance to the building over the plaintiffs portion and to the extent it recommends dismantling and removing of the cooling tower on the roof be adjudged, void delivered up and cancelled.
(e) Declaration that the interim report of the Expert committee to the extent it recommends front entrance to the building at the said premises and to the extent it recommends removal of the cooling tower on the roof is illegal, null and void.
(f) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from interfering with the plaintiffs possession, occupation and user of the front portion of the ground floor of the said premises purchased by several Nos of Registered Deeds of conveyances.
(g) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in any manner whatsoever taking possession and or use on do any thing which is prejudiced to the right title and interest in the area owned by the plaintiffs in the basement of the building of an area of 2600 sq. feet more specifically demarcated in the plan annexed thereto and marked with letter 'A.'
(h) Receiver
(i) Injunction
(j) Cost
(k) Such further relief and/or other reliefs.'
2. In the pending suit the plaintiffs filed these three interlocutory applications (G.A. No. 4512 of 2002, dated July 25th 2002; G.A. No. 3462 of 2002. dated August 28th, 2002; and G.A. No. 4513 of 2002, dated Oct. 8th 2002). In these applications the plaintiffs prayed for various interim reliefs including mandatory injunction to direct status quo ante regarding some portions of the suit properties.
3. For considering the controversies involved in these three interlocutory applications, and the prayer for mandatory injunction, it is necessary to see what is the case of the plaintiff. At this interim stage it will appear from the case made out in the plaint, it is narrated hereinafter.
4. The plaintiffs are Joint owners of various portions of the multistoried building situated at 33A, Jawaharlal Lal Nehru Road. .Calcutta-700 071. Defendants 1 to 11 are also owners of its various portions. Defend' ant 12 is the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
5. The portions of the building and other properties therein owned by the plaintiffs are :- (1) basement having 2600 sq. ft. of car parking area with a 180 KVA D.G, set and the Voltas air conditioning plant installed over an area of about 800 sq. ft. ; (2) the entire western portion of the ground floor measuring 8876 sq- ft. (3) the entire mezzanine floor measuring 13858.32 sq. ft; (4) the entire first floor measuring l3822.27 sq. ft.; (5) flats on 6th, 10th, 11th, and 12th floors measuring in all 12625 sq. ft, (6) a cooling tower installed on roof of the building , and (7) the ducts connecting the air conditioning plant at the basement with the cooling tower on the roof together with all other connected accessories and installations.
6. As lessee the State Bank of India was occupying and enjoying the portions of the basement, the ground floor, the mezzanine floor and the first floor owned by the plaintiffs in the building. The roof top cooling tower was meant for exclusive use by the inmates and occupiers of these portions.
7. By an order dated May 4th, 2000 passed in A.P.O.T. No. 285 of 2000 (arising out of C.S. No. 528 of 1980), a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to appoint a special officer for overseeing the constitution of a body by the owners and occupiers of the flats in the building. The property was under the administration and management of joint administrators appointed by Court. The society was to be formed for taking over the administration and management of the property from the joint administrators.
8. On May 14th 2000 a part of the platform projecting from the 6th floor fell resulting in death of one person and injury to three others. Because of such incident defendant 12 issued a notice dated May 15th. 2000 under Section 412(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. 1980. By this notice the owners, occupiers and other inmates of the premises were directed to vacate it forthwith, and not to enter into possession until further order. Such directions were given on the ground that the building at the premises was in a dangerous condition.
9. After the notice under Section 412 was issued, the Municipal Commissioner of defendant 12 by an order dated May 15th, 2000 set up a five member committee for the following purposes :- (1) to enquire about the cause of collapse. (2) to assess the structural stability of the main structure as well as the projections and architectural elements and all other parts of the building, (3) the possible measures to be taken for strengthening the building, (4) the possible precautionary measures for prevention of such future accident, and (5) miscellaneous,
10. On May 20th 2000 the expert committee submitted its preliminary report. In such report it made the following recommendations :-
1. The building with the side spaces. backspace and front approach all are extremely vulnerable at present. The building should be cordoned off for public safety till
(a) External cladding materials are removed
(b) Fire fighting platforms are removed and alternative arrangement for fire fighting should be planned and constructed with the advice of WBFS.
(c) Front face is examined and attended to.
2. At this stage only front entry and walkway can be commissioned Side passages should continue to remain closed except for the south side where scaffolding is already erected and the scaffolding must be checked for strength and stability and to be protected with screen of Netlon or similar approved quality material before proper restoration work is taken up and then the available passage between the scaffolding and the boundary wall will be made open to the user for ingress and egress with the provision of a canopy supported over the scaffolding at the entry point to protect the user. Even if the restoration work does not start but the protection measures are in place as mentioned earlier, the user can be allowed to use the said passage which needs through repair and restoration for safe movemen of users.
3. The front entry, which is safe to be used should be opened to the general users of the Building.
4. The entire external skin is found to be precariously held though apparently the main structural framework is in somewhat reasonable state which remains to be verified.
5. The outer skin on all sides is to be attended thoroughly especially window frame and glass panes and their fixtures for adequacy of strength.
6. The structural frame should be test checked.
7. Car parking within the premises should be prohibited for the present.
8. Committee should be expeditiously provided with-
(a) Sanctioned plan.
(b) As built drawing if available or else it has to be prepared.
(c) Structural drawing with details be made available or else an agency will have to be employed to prepare the structural details by the help of instrument like Rebar locators etc.
d) NDT and Core Tests at selected locations of the building and the vertical alignment of the Building.'
11. Then the expert committee submitted its interim report dated July 31st 2000 recommending demolition of fire fighting platforms, survey and investigation, and appointment of an architect to prepare plan and work drawing for restoration of the building facade. The expert committee specified the periods for completing such jobs. It also recommended that initial safety measures as recommended in the preliminary report should be attended to immediately.
12. In the preamble to its interim report the expert committee made the following observations :-
' 1.3.1 In view of the second recommendation of the PR it is observed that the front entry to the building is not yet commissioned for the use of the occupiers and the general public and the southern side passage is somewhat protected now for ingress and egress of the user while the northern side passage where the said accident had taken place remained closed to the users of the building according to the recommendation of the PR. Nevertheless, the Committee reiterates the restoration of the right of way for the users through the front entrance up to the lift ad staircase lobby be established agent and the somewhat protected southern side passage be reserved for the use of maintenance staff sparingly as and when required and also in emergency as the width of the passage is inadequate.'
13. In compliance with the notice the plaintiffs vacated their portions. Their tenants, including the State Bank of India, also vacated the premises . The State Bank of India vacated the portions occupied by it, except the basement, on August 31st, 2000.
14. By a letter dated Sept. 20th, 2000 the special officer granted permission to the plaintiffs for dismantling, repairing and renovating the cooling tower within two months; the time was subsequently extended. The plaintiffs immediately engaged M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited for carrying out the work. The agency engaged by the plaintiffs completed the work by Dec. 31st, 2000.
15. The Bank vacated the basement on Feb. 21st 2001. After it vacated the premises, the operation of the air conditioning plant together with the cooling tower meant for exclusive user by the State Bank of India as tenant of the plaintiffs was stopped.
16. The cooling tower having been repaired and re erected, it no longer was a threat to the safety of the building. But defendants 1 to 11 after illegally ousting the lawfully appointed members of the executive committee of the society (that was formed in the meantime) started harassing the plaintiffs who were previously in control of the society. These defendants threatened that they would take steps (a) to encroach upon the portions of the ground floor owned by the plaintiffs, and (b) also to demolish the cooling tower completely renovated by the plaintiffs. They exposed such threats by making reference to the reports submitted by the expert committee appointed by defendant 12.
17. The factual background was as briefly stated above when the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs as noted before. Defendants 1 to 11 had, however, lodged a caveat in this Court.
18. The first interlocutory application (G.A. No. 4512 of 2002 dated July 25th 2002) was filed for injunctions and others reliefs. In it an order was passed on July 30th, 2002. By this order the defendants were restrained from (a) disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs and (b) also from encroaching upon any portion occupied by the plaintiffs. A special officer was appointed to visit locale and ascertain the condition of the cooling tower.
19. In the mean while defendant 12 issued a notice dated July 27th , 2002 under Section 411(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. This notice was addressed both to the plaintiffs and to defendant 3 who claimed to be the general secretary of the society at that point of time. On July, 28th 2002 defendants 1 to 11 (a) demolished the cooling tower, (b) broke a wall of the ground floor, (c) broke the rolling iron shutters fitted at the front of the ground floor, and (d) threw open the ground floor portions owned by the plaintiffs for free ingress and egress of all users of the building.
20. On August 2nd. 2002 another order was passed in the first interlocutory application. In it, it was recorded that as per the report of the special officer the cooling tower had already been dismantled. By this order the special officer was directed to demarcate the area owned by the plaintiffs, and to cover such area by a temporary fencing without disturbing the existing entrance and/or passage for the ingress and egress of the inmates and occupiers of the building. Defendant 12 was directed to dispose of the representation made by the plaintiffs against the notice under Section 411(1). Directions were also given for filing oppositions to the first interlocutory application.
21. When the position was as stated above, the second interlocutory application (G.A. No. 3462 of 2002 dated August 28th 2002) was taken out by the plaintiffs. In this application the plaintiffs prayed (a) for directions upon the special officer to consider the documents of the plaintiffs for the purpose of demarcation of the portions owned by them, and (b) for modification of the order dated August, 2nd 2002. The plaintiffs also prayed for repair to the ground floor wall broken by defendants 1 to 11. In this application an order dated August 29th 2002 was passed to give directions for affidavits.
22. In the mean time in connection with the Section 411(1) notice defendant 12 gave a decision dated August 17th, 2002. It was given after considering the representation made by the plaintiffs. The decision was challenged by the plaintiffs in Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2002. By an order dated Sept. 9th 2002 Bhattacharya, J. was pleased to allow this writ petition, and set aside the notice issued by defendant 12 under Section 411(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. His Lordship was pleased to observe that the plaintiffs would be free to take appropriate actions against the persons who had demolished the wall or other portions of the building owned by them.
23. At the stage mentioned above, the third interlocutory application (G.A. No. 4513 of 2001 dated Oct. 8th 2002) was filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to restore the status quo ante of the ground floor and the roof top cooling tower owned by the plaintiffs in the premises.
24. The defendants are contesting all the three interlocutory applications. Defendants 1 to 11 have filed oppositions to the applications. The plaintiffs have filed replies to such oppositions. Defendant 12 has not filed any opposition to any of the applications.
25. Mr. Aninda Kuniar Mitra appears for the plaintiffs. His submissions are these. The three fundamental facts are admitted :- (1) ownership of the plaintiffs, (2) occupation of the plaintiffs, and (3) the actions complained of. On the basis of the recommendations made to defendant 12 by the expert committee set up by the defendant 12, defendants 1 to 11 had no right to demolish the cooling tower and encroach upon the property owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The Section 411(1) notice was found to be bad in law, and hence on the basis thereof defendants 1 to 11 had no authority to interfere with the plaintiffs ownership and possession. The defendants have sought to Justify their actions by raising a frivolous dispute regarding the discrepancy in the area purchased by the plaintiffs and the area actually occupied by them. The description of the property was given in the schedule to the conveyance and the plaintiffs were occupying the area described in the schedule. In case of a dispute regarding the area sold under a conveyance, the description given in the schedule shall prevail over the descriptions given at any other place. The legal position was explained in the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Durga Prasad Stngh v. Rajendra Narain Bagche, (1910) ILR 37 Cal 293 (DB). The principles relevant for granting mandatory Injunction were laid down in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, : AIR1985Cal248 ; sold under a conveyance, the and Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Pvt. Ltd., : AIR1996SC2102 .
26. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee appears for defendants 1 to 11. He submits that the three essential facts all are not admitted as contended by Mr. Mitra. The plaintiffs ownership in the western portion of the ground floor to the extent of 8876 sq. ft. is only admitted, and defendants 1 to 11 never admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs lo the extent of the entire 10,622 sq. ft. of the western portion of the ground floor. Defendants 1 to 11 never admitted the plaintiffs exclusive possession of even the 8876 sq. ft. of the ground floor owned by the plaintiffs, because through the ground floor the owners occupiers and inmates of other portions of the building, always enjoyed free ingress and egress. A passage through the ground floor was enjoyed by all for going out of the building through the ground floor front gate and also for using the lifts installed and stair cases existing, at the back of the eastern wall of the plaintiffs ground floor. Defendants 1 to 11 demolished the cooling tower and broke the bricks wall and the iron shutters fitted at the front gate for ingress and egress of the other owners, occupiers, inmates, and users of the building. Such actions were taken by defendants 1 to 11 on July, 28th 2002, and they took the steps in terms of the notice under Section 411(1) issued by defendant 12 on July 27th, 2002. Though the notice under Section 411 issued lo the plaintiffs was quashed by an order passed in the writ petition filed by the plaintiffs, the similar notice issued to defendants 1 to 11 remained operative. This should be the legal position in view of the decision in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India, : [1991]2SCR745 . The plaintiffs are not entitled to proceed with the suit, since they did not implement the order dated January 30th, 2002 whereby they were granted leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to sue in representative capacity. The decision in Lakhana Nayak v. Basudev Swamy, : AIR1991Ori33 dealt with a similar question. The law explained in Durga Prasad Singh's case applies only when a dispute arises between a vendor and a vendee, and not to other cases.
27. Mr. A.K. Das Adhikary appears for defendant 12. His submission is that in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunctions as prayed for. because the steps were taken by defendants 1 to 11 according to the recommendations made by the expert committee set up by defendant 12; and the actions were required for ensuring the safety of the owners, occupiers, inmates and general users of the building.
28. Mr. Soumen Sen appears for the person who has taken out G.A. No. 3432 of 2003 (an application for addition of party in the suit). His contention is that the plaintiffs after obtaining leave under Order 1, Rule 8 did not take further steps to implement the order, and hence they should not be permitted to proceed with the suit at all. He has relied on the decision given in the case of Arup Kumar Roy v. Biswajit Biswas, 2003 (4) Cal HN 368.
29. I find that the plaintiffs' ownership of the roof-top cooling tower is not disputed. Defendants 1 to 11 have, however, raised a dispute regarding the plaintiffs' ownership of the entire western side ground floor at the premises. According to them while under the relevant conveyance the plaintiffs purchased only 8876 sq. ft. they wrongly and illegally occupied the entire 10622 sq. ft. area of the western side ground floor in question.
30. To prove their ownership over the entire 10622 sq. ft. area of the western side ground floor at the premises, the plaintiffs have relied on the relevant conveyance. According to them the area described in the schedule to the conveyance was purchased by them and in the schedule while the boundaries of the floor in question were specifically mentioned, the area of 8876 sq, ft. in it was described as the rentable area. Their learned counsel has relied on the decision in Durga Prasad Singh's case in support of his contention that if there is a dispute regarding the area purchased under a conveyance, the description of the property given in the schedule to the conveyance shall prevail over the description of the property given at any other place. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision cited at the bar, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case that they are owners of the entire area within the western side ground floor at the premises.
31. It is the admitted position that the entire western side ground floor was in the possession of the plaintiffs. After their tenant (the State Bank of India) vacated this floor in compliance with the notice issued by defendant 12 under Section 412 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the plaintiffs, however, were not actually using this floor. They kept the floor unused and the keys of the two rolling iron shutters were with them. The two rolling iron shutters were :- (1) fitted at the front gate of the floor on the western side wall of the floor, and (2) fitted at the small emergency door of the floor at the southeast corner of the floor. The position was that since the keys were lying in the custody of the plaintiffs, no one could use this western side ground floor in any manner and for any purpose.
32. It is also the admitted position that defendants 1 to 11 broke the eastern side wall of this floor and broke open the collapsible gate and rolling iron shutters fitted at its front gate on the western side wall. Admittedly, defendants 1 to 11 have thrown open this western side ground floor for free ingress and egress of owners, occupiers, inmates and users of the building. These defendants took such steps on July 28th, 2002. On the same date they also dismantled the plaintiffs' roof-top cooling tower.
33. Defendants 1 to 11 have sought to Justify the steps taken by them on three grounds :- (1) the plaintiffs being not the lawful owners of the entire area of the western side ground floor at the premises, they have no right to object to the use of the common area in the floor for free ingress and egress of the owners; occupiers, inmates and users of the building; (2) the plaintiffs have no right to object to the use of a passage through the western side ground floor of the building for ingress and egress of the owners. occupiers, inmates and users of the building, because such right of ingress and egress was available even when the plaintiffs'-tenant (the State Bank of India) was occupying this floor and running its banking business from it; (3) the steps were taken in compliance with the notice under Section 411(1) issued by defendant 12.
34. I find no merit in the first plea taken by defendants 1 to 11 to justify the steps taken by them. Even if the plaintiffs were not lawful owners of the entire area in the floor in question, these defendants had no right to break open the wall and the front gate of the floor for converting portions of the floor into a passage for ingress and egress of the owners, occupiers, inmates and users of the building. Admittedly, these defendants have taken the steps without any lawful authority or legal right.
35. 1 find no merit also in the second plea taken by defendants 1 to 11 in justification of the steps taken by them. The claim made by them that the State Bank of India had permitted a passage through the floor in question for ingress and egress of the users of the building has absolutely no element of truth in it. The claim is apparently a false one. There is no material from which even a hint can be found that in the past users of the building had a free right of passage through the western side ground floor of the premises. It is nobody's case that after the State Bank of India vacated this floor any existing opening and/or door on any wall of this floor was closed by the plaintiffs in any manner. On the facts of this case it is apparent that the second plea taken by these defendants is based on a transparent falsehood.
36. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the third plea taken by defendants 1 to 11 to justify the steps taken by them has also no merit. The notice under Section 412 was issued by defendant 12 on May 15th, 2000. It is not disputed that such notice is still in force. By this notice defendant 12 directed all owners, occupiers, inmates and users of the building to vacate it, and not to enter into possession until further order. Nothing has been brought on record to show that defendant 12 issued further order to permit defendants 1 to 11 and other owners, occupiers, inmates and users of the building to enter into possession of their portions. The Expert Committee set up by defendant 12 gave its reports on May 20th. 2000 and July 31st. 2000. It recommended various measures for making the building stable and safe. The cooling tower belonging to the plaintiffs was duly repaired and renovated. There is nothing to show that even after repair and renovation it continued to remain a threat to the safety of the building. If the building is a dangerous one, it is beyond comprehension why defendant 12 continued to permit its use by its owners, occupiers, inmates and users. One of the recommendations of the Expert Committee was to open a passage through the western side ground floor in question. The Expert Committee suggested the measure for free ingress and egress of the owners, occupiers, inmates and users of the building. By issuing the notice under Section 411 defendant 12 sought to implement such recommendation of the Expert Committee.
37. Apprehending troubles at the hands of defendants 1 to 11 the plaintiffs filed the suit on July 24th, 2002. Before that, defendants 1 to 11 had lodged a caveat in this Court. July 27th, 2002 was a Saturday. The notice under Section 411 was issued by defendant 12 on July 27th. 2002. Under Section 411 the notice was to be issued only to the plaintiffs, as they are admittedly the owners of the floor and the cooling tower in question. By this notice defendant 12 directed the plaintiffs to dismantle the cooling tower and open the passage through the floor in question. The plaintiffs were asked to do these in terms of the Expert Committee recommendations contained in its reports dated May 20th, 2000 and July 31st 2000. The notice was also addressed to defendant 3. In the notice he was described as General Secretary of the society formed by the owners and occupiers of the flats of the building. By the notice defendant 12 invited objections if any. The notice reached the hands of defendants 1 to 11 on July 27th. 2002 itself; on the next day these defendants demolished the cooling tower and broke the wall and the locked collapsible gates and rolling iron shutters of the floor in question. The notice was served on the plaintiffs on July 29th. 2002. All these things happened when the suit (anticipating which defendants 1 to 11 had lodged caveat) was pending in this Court.
38. From the sequence of events, as narrated above, it appears to me that defendants 1 to 11 in collusion with defendant 12 procured the notice under Section 411. There was no earthly reason for defendant 12 to issue the notice all of a sudden when the Expert Committee's recommendations were about two years old. It is to be noted that this notice was preceded by a pre-emptive step taken by defendants 1 to 11. Before the notice was issued they had lodged a caveat in this Court anticipating institution of a suit by the plaintiffs. It shows that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11 were already involved in some serious disputes. Once the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs-defendants 1 to 11 as caveators presumably came to learn about the institution of the suit. It appears that with a view to committing the mischief before the plaintiffs could move this Court for appropriate interim reliefs, defendants I to 11 by entering into a collusion with defendant 12 got the notice under Section 411 issued in the name of defendant 3. These defendants wanted to steal a march. They committed the mischief instantly. The conduct of the defendants cannot be said to be clean at all. For these reasons I am of the view that defendants 1 to 11 are not entitled to justify the steps taken by them by placing reliance on the notice issued by defendant 12 under Section 411.
39. Admittedly, the notice under Section 411 issued by defendant 12 was quashed by the writ Court. Accordingly to defendants 1 to II the order passed in the writ petition will have no effect on the notice issued by defendant 12 in the name of defendant 3. On this ground also these defendants have sought to justify the steps taken by them, I find absolutely no merit in the plea. The notice could have lawfully been issued only against the plaintiffs. In the instant case the notice issued against them has already been quashed. So the notice issued to defendant 3 cannot survive. First, it was issued to an unauthorised person. Secondly, it was issued for the same purpose as was indicated in the one issued against the plaintiffs. The decision (Premji's case) relied on is totally misplaced. Therefore by such a frivolous plea defendants 1 to 11 are not entitled to justify their acts.
40. The principles regarding grant of mandatory injunction were discussed in the Division Bench decision of this Court in Indian Cable's case. It was held that interlocutory relief in mandatory form should be given only in a rare and exceptional case. However, there cannot be any dispute that even a interim stage mandatory injunction can be granted to restore such condition of a property as existed on the date of institution of the suit, if during pendency of the interlocutory application the defendants committed the mischief and changed the position to the prejudice and disadvantage of the plaintiffs. In the context of dispossession of a party without due process of law in Samir Sobhan Sanyal's case the Supreme Court observed that if the Court gives acceptance to a high-handed action like dispossession without due possess of law, there will be no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would take hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a field day for anarchy. The Supreme Court further observed that if the Court blinks at such unlawful action, due process of law would be put to ridicule in the estimate of the law abiding citizens and rule of law would remain a mortuary.
41. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that in the instant case the plaintiffs should be granted the interim reliefs in mandatory form and defendants 1 to 11 should be directed Lo restore the plaintiffs' roof-top cooling tower and the western side ground floor .at the building to such conditions in which they were before July 28th, 2002.
42. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for defendant 12 to raise the question of public interest. 1 am unable to see how public interest comes in the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11. They are involved in a private dispute and such dispute has nothing to do with any public interest. If the notice under Section 411 was issued by defendant 12 in public interest, the admitted position is that the writ Court has already rejected the plea by quashing the notice. If public interest demands that no one should use the building till it is declared safe, it is difficult to understand why defendant 12 has been permitting all owners, occupiers, inmates and general users of the building to use it from July 15th, 2000 till date.
43. Another contention has been raised that the plaintiffs obtained leave under 0. 1. R. 8 of the C.P.C., but did not implement the order; and hence they are not entitled to proceed with these interlocutory applications. The decision in Arup Kumar Roy's case has been relied on in support of this contention. In my considered view. on this ground the interim relief cannot be denied to the plaintiffs.
44. For the foregoing reasons, these three interlocutory applications (G.A. Nos. 3462, 4512 and 4513 of 2002) are disposed of by the following order :-
The defendants are hereby directed to restore such conditions of the plaintiffs' rooftop cooling tower and the western side ground floor at the suit premises as was existing on the date of institution of the suit; and they shall restore the conditions of these properties within three weeks from the date. The defendants are also hereby restrained from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs' properties in the suit premises, including the properties conditions whereof shall be restored by the defendants in terms of this order. This order of injunction shall remain in force till the disposal of the suit.
45. The costs of these three applications shall be the costs in the suit.
46. Urgent certified xerox copy of this Judgment and order may be made available to, the parties, if applied for.