Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of defendant No.1 in a suit for permanent injunction and is directed against Order No.16 dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the learned Judge 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.471 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by directing the parties to maintain status quo in the matter of installation of a capsule lift in the suit property till the disposal of the suit. (2.) The plaintiff-respondents, twelve in number, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No.471 of 2005 thereby praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, its men, agents and subordinates from installing and/errecting any capsule lift and/or capsule elevator in any portion of 25A, Camac Street, Calcutta-700 016, which is known as Vardaan Market. The palintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2, namely, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, its authorities, functionaries and officers from sanctioning, permitting and/or allowing installation and/or erection of capsule lift or capsule elevator in any portion of 25A, Camac Street. (3.) The case made out by the plaintiffs in the said suit may be summed up thus: "(a) The basement, ground and first floors of the suit premises consist of shops whereas the second, third and fourth floors comprise offices. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 11 are all sub-lessees of different shop rooms in different portions of the said building being 25A, Camac Street, Kolkata and plaintiff No. 12, is the association formed by the shop and other unit holders of the market building. (b) By different indentures of sub-leases, each of plaintiff Nos.1 to 11 were granted sub-lease of their respective unit and were also granted undivided proportionate share of common area and facilities mentioned in those indentures of sub-lease. Apart from other rights, each of the plaintiffs was specifically granted the right of ingress and egress to and from his concerned unit and such right of ingress and egress was also given to men, materials and utilities alike. Such a right was an integral part of the grant and was absolutely essential for smooth running and functioning of the plaintiffs business. Such a right was an integral part of the grant and was absolutely essential for smooth running and functioning of the plaintiffs business. (c) As per terms of the indenture of sub-lease, the plaintiff No. 12, the association, duly assumed supervision and control of all the rights relating to common benefits, facilities, advantages, easement of its member units as contemplated in the indentures of sub-lease. (d) The defendant No.1 for the last few years was trying to make construction of a capsule elevator/lift in the premises not only affecting the right of the plaintiffs but also the strength and stability of the building as a whole; however, the defendant No.1 was not successful in constructing such lift due to resistance given by the shop owners and at the same time, the Corporation Authority rejected the prayer for sanction of such capsule lift. (e) Recently, on or about 19th March, 2005, some persons were found taking measurement of the common area adjacent to the building on the Western (front) side overlooking Camac Street and upon enquiry, the plaintiffs learnt that the said persons were neither personnel deputed by Joint Special Officers appointed by the High Court in connection with the pending litigations nor had they any connection with fire-fighting services. The plaintiffs came to learn that those persons were taking measurement for excavating the land in front of the building for the purpose of installation of capsule lift/elevator. Those persons further gave out that the representatives of defendant No.1 had already managed a section of the Officials of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and those Officers permitted the defendant No.1 to go ahead with installation of the capsule lift with the assurance that the Corporation will regularise the same. (f) If the defendant No.1 is permitted to raise such capsule lift, the same will affect the existing right of the plaintiffs in the property and will also make the building unsafe." Hence, the suit. (4.) In connection with such a suit, the plaintiffs came up with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from making any construction of the capsule lift and at the same time, restraining the Corporation from sanctioning the plan for installation of any such lift. (5.) The aforesaid application was opposed by defendant No.1 thereby disputing the allegations made in the application for temporary injunction and its defence was that it had right to apply for grant of sanction of a capsule lift and such lift would not affect any of the existing rights of the plaintiffs or other shop owners in the property by virtue of different sub-leases executed by defendant No.1 in their favour. (6.) The learned Trial Judge initially granted an ad interim order of injunction and ultimately by the order impugned herein has made the said ad interim order absolute by directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the installation of the said capsule lift till the disposal of the suit. (7.) Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1 has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. (8.) Mr. Mitra, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended before us that as a lessee of the premises, his client has every right to make construction over any part of the suit property after getting due sanction from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, provided, such construction does not affect any of the existing rights of the sub-lessees created by his client. Mr.Mitra submits that the rights of the plaintiffs are indicated in the sub-lease deeds executed in their favour and it would appear that their rights are restricted to their particular unit only with the right of ingress and egress to and from their respective shop rooms from outside. Mr. Mitra submits that proposed construction will not affect any of the rights of the plaintiffs inasmuch as such construction will not create any impediment in the exercise of the right of ingress and egress. Mr. Mitra submits that his client is aggrieved by the order of the status quo in the sense that in view of such order, the Municipal Corporation Authority is also restrained from considering the plan submitted by his client in accordance with law. Mr. Mitra contends that the learned Trial Judge had no authority to restrain a statutory authority from considering an application for sanction of plan in accordance with law. Mr. Mitra submits that his client undertakes not to make any construction unless the plan for the proposed capsule lift or elevator is granted by Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He, therefore, prays for vacating the order of status quo. Mr. Mitra submits that his client undertakes not to make any construction unless the plan for the proposed capsule lift or elevator is granted by Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He, therefore, prays for vacating the order of status quo. (9.) The aforesaid contentions of Mr.Mitra are vehemently opposed by Mr.Banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/ sub-lessees. According to Mr. Banerjee, in the past, the Corporation rejected the application for sanction of the capsule lift and the appellant although tried before this Court in a writ jurisdiction for setting aside such order of Municipal Authority was unsuccessful. Mr. Banerjee submits that once the Municipal Corporation had rejected the application of the defendant No.1 for grant of sanction in respect of such a capsule lift, repeated applications of the same nature cannot be filed before the Corporation and the same was an abuse of process of law. (10.) Mr. Banerjee further contends that by virtue of different sub-leases created in favour of his clients not only an exclusive right has been created in different shop units but such right also includes right over common area. Mr. Banerjee contends that the lessee of the building has no right to make any further construction in any portion of the building as the same would encroach upon the common area specified in the different deeds creating the sub-leases. Mr. Banerjee, therefore, contends that the learned Trial Judge rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit as his clients made out a strong prima facie case to have an order of injunction. (11.) Mr. Ghosh, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation virtually supported the claim of the plaintiffs and submitted that having regard to the previous orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ applications, the defendant No.1 should not be entitled to have sanctioned plan for construction of such lift. Mr. Ghosh, however, submits that such application for sanction plan has not yet been considered in view of order of status quo granted by the learned Trial Judge. (12.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials on record we find that admittedly the defendant No.1 is the lessee of the property and they have created different sub-leases to the plaintiffs and other shop owners. (12.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials on record we find that admittedly the defendant No.1 is the lessee of the property and they have created different sub-leases to the plaintiffs and other shop owners. Those sub-leases are restricted to the particular unit exclusively occupied by the different plaintiffs with their right of ingress and egress. After going through those deeds of such-leases, we find that the rights that have been conferred upon them is the exclusive possession over their shop rooms with right of ingress and egress for the purpose of coming to and going from the said shop room but no right has been created over the entire building. Therefore, if the proposed capsule lift is erected at a place which in no way would affect the right of the plaintiffs in the matter of ingress and egress or for enjoying their sub-leases, prima facie, the defendant No.1 is entitled to erect such lift provided further that the formalities required under Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and Building Rules framed thereunder are complied with. There is no dispute that defendant No.1 has already applied for grant of sanction to such capsule lift and such application has not been finally disposed of. Under the law of the land, it is for the Municipal Authority to consider such application in accordance with law and if the defendant No.1 is aggrieved, it is free to approach the authorities prescribed under the provisions of law against such decision. Similarly, under the provision of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, any person whose legal right is going to be infringed by a proposed sanction can submit objection before the Municipal Authority pointing out the apprehended injury and it is the duty of the Municipal Authority to take into consideration those objections at the time of grant of sanction. We should also bear in mind that so long sanction is not granted, the defendant No.1 has no right to start any construction over the property. (13.) We, therefore, find substance in the contentions of Mr. Mitra that the learned Trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in restraining the Municipal Authority from considering the plan submitted by the defendant No.1 in accordance with law. (13.) We, therefore, find substance in the contentions of Mr. Mitra that the learned Trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in restraining the Municipal Authority from considering the plan submitted by the defendant No.1 in accordance with law. In course of consideration of such application, the defendant No.1 is also entitled to give modified plan, if the one submitted cannot be sanctioned in accordance with law. Even after rejection of an application for grant of sanction, the party can file fresh modified plan for consideration after complying with the formalities required under the law. But there is no just reason why Municipal Authority, though permitted under law to consider such application, should be restrained from considering the same till the disposal of the suit. A Civil Court within the meaning of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot take upon itself the responsibility of considering whether in a given circumstances a person is entitled to get sanction of a plan which is required to be done at the first instance by the statutory authority. (14.) We, therefore, find that the order of status quo passed by the learned Trial Judge has affected the right of defendant No. 1 in presenting its application for grant of sanction and has also infringed its right to have consideration of such application in accordance with law. (15.) We, therefore, modify the order impugned to this extent that so long sanction is not granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the defendant No.1 should be restrained from making any construction of capsule lift as mentioned in the plaint but such order will not affect the right of the Corporation to consider the application for sanction if filed in accordance with law. At the time of consideration of the application, the Municipal Authority will also take into consideration the objections that may be raised by the plaintiffs and will see whether the proposed construction in any way affects the right of the plaintiffs in the premises in question as would appear from their respective deeds. In the event any sanction is granted, the plaintiff will be at liberty to challenge such sanction in accordance with law; similarly, if the sanction is refused, the defendant No.1 will also be at liberty to move higher forum as provided in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and Building Rules before such authority. In the event any sanction is granted, the plaintiff will be at liberty to challenge such sanction in accordance with law; similarly, if the sanction is refused, the defendant No.1 will also be at liberty to move higher forum as provided in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and Building Rules before such authority. (16.) We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the respective claims of the parties and it would be for the municipal authorities to decide such question in accordance with law. We have varied the order of status quo only because it has restrained a statutory authority from discharging its statutory duty till the disposal of the suit when such authority does not lack either territorial or inherent jurisdiction to deal with the application. (17.) The appeal is, thus, allowed. The order impugned is modified to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.