JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, J. These two appeals and the connected applications for stay were taken up for hearing analogously. The first of the two appeals has been preferred by Joita Estate Private Limited, on the basis of the leave granted by this Court on 13th December, 2000, upon condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal. The second of the two appeals has been preferred by one Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu, who had been made defendant No.2 in a suit filed by Sarathi Construction Company & Ors., the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 in the said appeal, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, being Title Suit No. 1446 of 2000. Both the appeals are directed against Order No.3 dated 30th August, 2000, and Order No.7 dated 20th October, 2000 passed by the learned trial court in the aforesaid suit firstly on an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 C.P.C. and two other applications filed under Order 39 Rule 7 and under section 151 C.P.C. In the second of the two appeals one other order, being Order No.8 dated 31st October, 2000, passed by the learned trial Court, has also been challenged. 2. The case as made out in Title Suit No. 1446 of 2000 is that the plaintiff, had purchased a property being No. 19A, Chowdhury Lane from Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu for valuable consideration and without notice of a mortgage in respect of the said property in favour of the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. the defendant No.1 in the suit. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction in the said suit and by Order No.3 dated 30th August, 2000 an interim injunction was passed by the learned trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedules A, Band C of the petition till 31st October, 2000. Schedule 'A' to the petition refers to premises No.1A, Chowdhury Lane, Police Station Shyampukur, Calcutta-700 004. Schedule 'B' refers to a three storeyed building, being No. 397 Block 'G' New Alipore, Calcutta - 700 053, owned by the defendant No.2 Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu, absolutely. Schedule 'c' refers to a flat owned by Smt. Krishna Ghosh, defendant No.3 in the suit, being No. 207 Windsor Court, 17 Millers, Bangalore-560 046. 3. Schedule 'B' refers to a three storeyed building, being No. 397 Block 'G' New Alipore, Calcutta - 700 053, owned by the defendant No.2 Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu, absolutely. Schedule 'c' refers to a flat owned by Smt. Krishna Ghosh, defendant No.3 in the suit, being No. 207 Windsor Court, 17 Millers, Bangalore-560 046. 3. Since the plaintiffs' suit was confined to premises No. 19A, Chowdhury Lane only, but the ad interim order of status quo was directed also against premises No. 397 Block 'G' New Alipore, Calcutta - 700 053, over which M/s. Joita Estate Private Ltd. claimed to have acquired an interest from Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu, the said M/s. Joita Estate Private Ltd. filed an application being CAN No. 8992 of2000, for leave to prefer an appeal which was numbered as T-3637(FMA) of 2000. An application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, being CAN No. 8991 of 2000, was also filed and both the said two applications were taken up for hearing on 13th December, 2000 and were allowed and the appeal was directed to be registered if otherwise in form. 4. As indicated hereinbefore, the second of the two appeals was preferred by Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu also against the same orders passed by the learned trial Court. Since both the appeals arose out of the same orders, they were heard together analogously. 5. Two separate applications for stay were filed in the two appeals and were also taken up for hearing along with the appeals on 15th January, 2001. 6. Appearing in support of the appeal filed by M/s. Joita Estate Private Limited, Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned advocate, urged that since the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 1446 of 2000 claim to have acquired an interest only in respect of premises No. 19A, Chowdhury Lane, Calcutta - 700 004, the learned trial court had erred in granting an order of status quo in respect of premises No. 397 Block 'G', New Alipore, Calcutta - 700 053, over which the plaintiffs had no claim. It was urged that no reason as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. had also been given by the learned trial court while passing Order No.3 dated 30th August, 2000, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties which did not form the subject matter of the •suit. Mr. It was urged that no reason as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. had also been given by the learned trial court while passing Order No.3 dated 30th August, 2000, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties which did not form the subject matter of the •suit. Mr. Banerjee also pointed out that the subsequent Order No.7 dated 20th October, 2000, could not also be sustained since it sought to enforce the interim order passed in respect of the premises which did not form the subject matter of the suit and over which the plaintiffs had no claim whatsoever. 7. Mr. Banerjee submitted that Order No.3 dated 30th August, 2000, and the Order No.7 dated 20th October, 2000, passed by the learned trial court and impugned in the appeal were not capable of being maintained and were liable to be set aside. 8. The same arguments as were advanced by Mr. Banerjee were also advanced by Mr. Bimal Chatterjee appearing for Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu in the appeal filed by Shri Basu. Mr. Chatterjee also urged that the orders impugned in the two appeals were liable to be set aside. 9. Appearing for the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., the respondent No.1 in F.M.A.T. No. 3637 of2000, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee submitted that his client had advanced a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs to Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu with an intent to create a security in respect thereon for the said loan. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that without informing the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu allegedly made over the said sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to the defendant No.2, which fact was made known by Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu to his client by a letter dated 24th November, 1994. Mr. Chatterjee contended that by a letter dated 9th March, 1995 the defendant No.2 in the suit agreed to pay the balance remaining of the said sum of Rs. 151akhs with interest to Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. However, since the said amounts were not paid either by Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu or M. Elias Private Ltd. or Smt. Drishna Ghosh, the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. filed a suit, being C.S. No.23 of 1998, in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, for a decree for Rs. 21,96,022/- against Shri Sanjib Kumar Basu, M. Elias Private Ltd. and Smt. Krishna Ghosh, the defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3, jointly and severally and also for a declaration that the properties, being premises Nos. 17 A and 19A, Chowdhury Lane, Calcutta - 700 004, were subject to a first and paramount charge for the payment of the dues of the plaintiffs in the suit. A decree was also prayed for the sale of the said premises with liberty to the plaintiffs to appropriate the net sale proceeds in portanto satisfaction of its claim in the suit. 10. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that while the suit filed by his client was pending, Sarathi Construction Company and three others filed an application in this Court, being A.L.P. No. 69 of 1999, under clause 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of various suits pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta to this Court. The said application was disposed of on 11th May, 1999 by Sujit Kumar Sinha, J. by directing that the said suits be transferred to this Court for disposal. Thereafter, the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. filed a separate application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent read with section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being A.L.P. No. 32 of2000, for transfer of Title suit No. 1416 of 2000 pending before the City Civil Court at Calcutta to this Court. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that a Rule was issued on the said application by the learned Single Judge on 28th September, 2000 and the same is yet to be disposed of. While issuing the said Rule the learned Single Judge was also pleased to direct stay of all further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of the application. 11. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in F.M.A.T. No. 3678 of 2000 Mr. Shyamal Chowdhury, learned advocate submitted that since this Court had in A.L.P. No. 32 of 2000 stayed all further proceedings in connection with Title Suit No. 1446 of2000, pending before the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, no further order could be passed in respect of the orders passed therein and impugned in the two appeals under consideration. It was urged that the appeals along with the connected applications for stay were liable to be dismissed. 12. It was urged that the appeals along with the connected applications for stay were liable to be dismissed. 12. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties in view of the nature of the facts involved, we are unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in F.M.A.T. No. 3637 of2000 that having regard to the order passed by this Court on 28th September, 2000 in A.L.P. No. 32 of 2000 staying all further proceedings in Title Suit No. 1446 of 2000 (Sarathi Construction Company & Ors. vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd.) the two appeals and the connected applications for stay have been rendered infructuous. Although, stay has been granted in respect of further proceedings in the suit itself, the same, in our view, need not operate as a bar as far as the interim orders and the proceedings related thereto are concerned, as that would defeat the very purpose of granting such stay. 13. We are in agreement with Mr. Ashoke Banerjee and Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, learned advocates, that the learned trial court erred in passing an interim order in respect of the property over which the plaintiff before the learned trial court had no claim. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit itself is confined to premises No. 19A, Chowdhury Lane, Calcutta -700 004 and, in our view, the learned trial court ought to have taken recourse to other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to attachment before judgment in respect of the properties covered by the order of status quo. In our view, the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 1446 of 2000 were not entitled to pray for an interim order which would have the effect of affecting third party rights which had intervened in the absence of such third parties. 14. For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeals and set aside the orders impugned therein. This will not, however, prevent the plaintiffs from taking recourse to the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, if so advised. 15. The two applications for stay in connection with the two appeals, being C.A.N. Nos. 8775 and 8925 of 2000, are also disposed of accordingly. 16. Having regard to the nature of the facts involved, the parties will bear their own costs in the two appeals. 15. The two applications for stay in connection with the two appeals, being C.A.N. Nos. 8775 and 8925 of 2000, are also disposed of accordingly. 16. Having regard to the nature of the facts involved, the parties will bear their own costs in the two appeals. Appeals allowed.