In the meantime, the appellant sought police aid in the execution proceeding for execution of the decree under Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC.
1 filed a review application.
1 thereafter, there was numberbasis to grant the equitable relief of temporary injunction in favour of the Respondent No.Respondent No.
A suit for eviction of the tenant was filed, inter alia, on the ground of subletting of the premises to respondent No.
This review application has been allowed by the Division Bench by the impugned order dated 12.9.1993 and a temporary injunction has been granted resulting in stay of execution of the decree for eviction.
The Division Bench held that in the ejectment suit, respondent No.
1 then filed an application for temporary injunction in the suit filed by him which was rejected by the Trial Court Respondent No.
1 instituted Title Suit No.
1, Kailash Chand Srivastava.
Jamuna Srivastava filed an application under Order 21, Rule 108, C.P.C. which was rejected.
In an application for temporary injunction made in the suit of respondent No.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
A decree for ejectment was passed in favour of the landlord on 12.9.1994 by the Calcutta High Court in the appeal arising out of that suit and the respondents were directed to furnish an undertaking to vacate the premises within the specified period.
947 of 1989 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a declaration that he was entitled to occupy the said premises and a permanent injunction to restrain execution of the decree for ejectment.
1 against refusal of the temporary injunction.
On 14.8.1992, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal of respondent No.
The Trial Court refused the temporary injunction and a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.
The wife of respondent No.
102 of 1972 on behalf of the tenant as his companystituted attorney, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
The decree was put in execution since the respondents neither gave the undertaking number vacated the premises.
1 filed an appeal against refusal of temporary injunction.
S. Verma, J. Leave granted.
1 made an objection which too was rejected.
Bhagwan Das Damani, predecessor in interest of the original petitioner Bate Krishna Damani, number dead and represented by his legal representatives, was the owner of the premises Suit No.
Respondent No.
1 Smt.
After dismissal of that appeal, respondent No.
5, 19 B. Bipin Behari Ganguli Street, Calcutta and Mr. J.M. Solomon and his wife Ezy Solomon were his tenant in the said premises.
Respondent No.
1 had appeared as the companystituted attorney of the Solomons stating therein that he was a caretaker without assertion of any claim that he was a tenant in the said premises.
1 companytested the suit Ejectment Suit No.
