JUDGMENT Mookherjee, J. The present appeal is directed against Order No. 47 dated 2.5.1994, passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title suit No. 2459 of 1992. By the said Order, white disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent and an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure, preferred on behalf of the defendant/ appellant, the learned Trial Judge, inter alia, directed that the existing tarpaulin structure on the disputed roof be replaced by temporary tin roof structure over the existing RCC columns; water should be prevented from coming over to the disputed roof by sitting in-slop, over-hanging beyond the building parametre and the debris on the roof should be removed; the directed works should be carried out by the defendant with prior consultation with the plaintiff and under plaintiff's supervision, initially the costs being borne by the defendant. After admitting the appeal before this Court preferred by the defendant, this Division Bench, on 8th July, 1994, inter alia, directed appointment of a Civil Engineer, who was to consider the proposals for effecting temporary repairs and submit a report. By another Order, dated 19th July, 1994, the plaintiff was directed to take steps, in terms of the report of the Special Officer, to provide temporary protection/ remedial measures from rains to the portion of the premises occupied by the appellant. The said temporary remedial measures were to be taken, as, on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff, it was contended that putting up structures in accordance with the directions of the Trial Court would require at least 6 to 8 weeks. By another Order dated 17th May, 1995, an adhoc arrangement was directed by a Division Bench, authorising the appellant to implement the Orders, dated 8th and 19th July, 1994. The appeal, thereafter, came up before us for being finally heard out. 2. Admittedly, the suit is pending before the Trial Court. The contentions advanced clearly reveal certain admitted factual state of affairs namely (i) ownership belongs to the plaintiff; (ii) defendant's lease has a long period to run; (iii) there are allegations and counter-allegations of the leakage being caused in the roof due to action of the defendant. 2. Admittedly, the suit is pending before the Trial Court. The contentions advanced clearly reveal certain admitted factual state of affairs namely (i) ownership belongs to the plaintiff; (ii) defendant's lease has a long period to run; (iii) there are allegations and counter-allegations of the leakage being caused in the roof due to action of the defendant. The repairs proposed to be carried on by the defendant may result in conferring better amenities to it as a tenant than those available to the inception of tenancy; on the other hand absence of immediate remedial measures may cause serious damage to the highly sophisticated appliances of the defendant, which have been kept under the roof; (iv) according to the terms of the lease, primarily, the owners are liable to keep the roof, main walls and exterior of the premises, amongst others, in good and tenantable order and condition. 3. The impugned Order indicates that the extent of rights claimed by the parties has to be finally determined before the relief asked for by either of the parties in assertion of their respective rights, can be granted. The repairs proposed by the defendant may alter the nature of the roof in dispute to which the tenancy of the defendant does not extend save and except that the condition of the roof should be so maintained as to allow the defendant to enjoy its tenancy, The Engineer/Special Officer, appointed by this Court, suggested certain remedial measures, on a temporary basis, for preventing prejudice being caused to the interest of either of the parties during the last monsoon. The steps suggested by the said Engineer/Special Officer were as follows :- 1. Repair of existing Tarpaulin Roof where leakage occurs. 2. Strengthening of supporting bamboo structure as necessary. 3. The Roof should be cleaned and cleared of rubbish, debris and shrubs etc. 4. Rain water down pipes should be cleaned for clearing out of water. 5. The Tarpaulin structures should be extended to the uncovered portion of roof where required necessary. In terms of the said report, by our Order dated 19th July, 1994, respondent/plaintiff was directed to take steps to provide temporary protection/remedial measures from rains to the disputed portion in occupation of the appellant/defendant. 4. 5. The Tarpaulin structures should be extended to the uncovered portion of roof where required necessary. In terms of the said report, by our Order dated 19th July, 1994, respondent/plaintiff was directed to take steps to provide temporary protection/remedial measures from rains to the disputed portion in occupation of the appellant/defendant. 4. Since the suit itself is pending, we do not think it would be proper on our part to allow the prayers of either of the parties as made for which adjudication of the respective rights will have to be made. Findings on factors, which are in law needed to be considered for grantor refusal of an interim Order; may not be effectively made before disposal of suit because of special factual features of the instant case and any decision or determination, leading to the grant or refusal of such interim Order as prayed for, would have the effect of prejudging issues in the suit. We are not unmindful that notwithstanding the above difficulties needed protection must have to be given to the defendant, at least, on a temporary basis till the suit is heard out. We do not also approve of the measures suggested by the learned Trial Judge because of inherent difficulties, impractical nature and dangers thereof. In our view, if the steps suggested by the Engineer/Special Officer, as quoted above, are carried out sufficient protection would be afforded till the suit is disposed of, particularly when the rainy season is far away. 5. The appeal, therefore, is allowed to the extent indicated above; the Order under appeal is set aside with the following directions :- That the plaintiff would effect necessary repairs on the lines of the report of the Special Officer/Engineer, Sri Gautam Ghosh, appointed by us and as noted above by the first week of December, 1995, at its costs abiding by the results of the suit and any directions to be passed therein. In default, however, on the part of the plaintiff to carry out the same within three weeks, the defendant would be entitled to carry out such repairs on the same terms and conditions. We keep on record that any step taken in terms of this Order will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit. The hearing of the suit, we direct, would stand expedited. We keep on record that any step taken in terms of this Order will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit. The hearing of the suit, we direct, would stand expedited. We are informed that the suit is at the stage of framing of issues. The learned Trial Judge is directed to take steps for hearing out the suit by the 15th of March, 1996, not earlier. The learned Trial Judge is authorise to refuse any prayer for adjournment, which to him, appears to be avoidable and in case an adjournment is required to be granted, specific reason for the same must be recorded in the relevant order. There will be no order as to costs. If an urgent certified copy is applied for, the same be delivered within 10 days from the date of deposit of requisite stamps and folios. Mitra, J. : I agree.