JUDGMENT 1. THE suit was filed in July, 2009 following a fire at Model House at 40, Strand Road, Calcutta. The plaintiffs are some of the occupants of Model House. The first defendant originally owned the entirety of Model House and is now, whether directly or through tenants, in occupation of a substantial portion of the building. The second defendant is an association of the occupants at the building that was almost defunct prior to the fire but appears to have been revived after orders passed in the suit. The third defendant is CESC Limited and the fourth defendant is the Director General of West Bengal Fire Services. 2. GA No. 1795 of 2009 is the plaintiffs' original application for interlocutory reliefs on which orders have been passed from time to time. The initial order passed on July 10, 2009 was in the presence of the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants. The second defendant has always sided with the plaintiffs and it has been submitted by the other occupants who are represented that they should be seen as one. The order dated July 10, 2009 appointed an Administrator "for purposes of restoring supply (of electricity) in the said premises and maintaining the said premises as was done by the respondent No.1." The administrator was permitted to initiate talks with the third and fourth defendants and the third and the fourth defendants were directed to render all assistance to the Administrator. The order thereafter recorded: "As the Administrator may not be able to visit the said premises on a day to day basis Mr. Sushil Saraf, one of the office bearers of the respondent No.2 will assist the Administrator for carrying out the day to day maintenance of the said premises. As there is none to look after the administration of the said premises the Administrator will take possession of the equipments, plant and machinery and lift in the said premises. As a temporary arrangement the maintenance charges be paid by the occupants of the said premises to the Administrator. As there is none to look after the administration of the said premises the Administrator will take possession of the equipments, plant and machinery and lift in the said premises. As a temporary arrangement the maintenance charges be paid by the occupants of the said premises to the Administrator. This order is passed as without funds in his hands it will be impossible for the Administrator to maintain the said, premises." A subsequent order on the plaintiffs' application made on July 27, 2009 recorded that since the third defendant was willing to restore supply of electricity to the said premises upon certain formalities being fulfilled, the plaintiffs should comply with the formalities including obtaining a no-objection certificate from the fire department. Several orders were subsequently made on the plaintiffs' application, including a substantial order of August 26, 2009. On October 26, 2009, two other applications, GA No.2672 of 2009 and GA No.2781 of 2009, were taken up for the first time. GA No.2672 of 2009 is an application by one of the occupants at the building for leave to intervene in the proceedings. The other application is by the first defendant for the removal of Sushil Shroff and for rendition of accounts in respect of the monies collected on account of maintenance charges and other demands. Since the suit was instituted with leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code, the applicant in GA No.2672 of 2009 and other similarly placed persons in a subsequent application being GA No.2445 of 2010 have been heard. 3. GA No.1576 of 2010 is an application by UCO Bank which is in occupation of about 4,800 sq.ft at the said premises, complaining of the money being demanded on behalf of the Administrator from time to time for the purpose of undertaking repair or maintenance works at the building. GA No.2445 of 2010 is by nine other occupants of the building who have sought leave to intervene and who have complained of irregularities allegedly committed by the plaintiffs and the second defendant, particularly by the Administrator's assistant, Sushil Shroff, who is both an office-bearer of the second defendant association and a director of the first plaintiff. GA No.2445 of 2010 is by nine other occupants of the building who have sought leave to intervene and who have complained of irregularities allegedly committed by the plaintiffs and the second defendant, particularly by the Administrator's assistant, Sushil Shroff, who is both an office-bearer of the second defendant association and a director of the first plaintiff. It is primarily on the complaint of the bank and of the applicants in GA No.2445 of 2010 that several orders have been made in the suit, including for all papers relating to the collection and expenditure of funds by the Administrator's assistant to be taken custody of by a receiver appointed by Court. The applicants in GA No.2445 of 2010 have been supported by 30 other occupants of the building who have suggested, along with the bank and the applicants in GA No.2445 of 2010, that monies realized from the occupants of the building, under authority of the administrator have been misapplied, inter alia, by meeting the unexplained legal expenses of the plaintiffs which amount to more than two-third of the total funds obtained from the occupants of the building. 4. ON November 10, 2010 an order was made on the applications that since a temporary electricity connection had continued for a period of nearly 18 months, the conditions imposed by the licensing authority should be complied with. Such direction was made at the behest of the third defendant who said that despite the temporary connection having been provided on the understanding that all requisite conditions would be met, such matter had been completely overlooked. ON December 14, 2010 it was noticed that despite leave having been obtained under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code at the time of institution of the suit and a specific order in such regard having been made on July 9, 2009, no publication in terms of such order had been made. The order also recorded that the first defendant had complained of the conduct of the Sushil Shroff and the "exorbitant demands" made on the occupants for payment of money. Some of the other occupants at the premises who were represented on such day suggested that Sushil Shroff and the plaintiffs were probably not interested in pursuing the matter since Shroff had made "substantial unauthorized monetary collection." The bank had also suggested that the bank apprehended that the plaintiffs may attempt to withdraw the suit. Some of the other occupants at the premises who were represented on such day suggested that Sushil Shroff and the plaintiffs were probably not interested in pursuing the matter since Shroff had made "substantial unauthorized monetary collection." The bank had also suggested that the bank apprehended that the plaintiffs may attempt to withdraw the suit. The order required Shroff to cause all notices issued in respect of the maintenance and other charges demanded from the occupants at the said building since July 9, 2009 to be produced in Court on December 16, 2010. Shroff was also required to furnish all papers in respect of the abstract accounts furnished by him by way of his affidavit affirmed on September 20, 2010. On December 20, 2010, a receiver was appointed to immediately take charge of all books of accounts and vouchers and other papers that had been brought to Court by Shroff. An inventory of all the papers was directed to be made and the receiver was asked to retain the papers subject to the parties, including the occupants at the building represented in Court, having leave to inspect the same. The order dated December 20, 2010 observed that despite the directions contained in the order dated December 14, 2010, directing Shroff to cause all notices in respect of the maintenance or other charges demanded from the occupants at the building subsequent to the institution of the suit to be produced in Court by December 16, 2010 such records had not been produced till the time that the matter was taken up on the first call on December 20, 2010. The order recorded that some papers had been subsequently brought which the receiver was required to take possession of. The order also noticed the complaints of the bank and the applicants in G.A.No.2445 of 2010 regarding expenses incurred on several heads in the guise of repair and maintenance works. 5. ON December 21, 2010 a detailed order was passed which, inter alia, referred to the grievances of the bank and some of the occupants at the building. The order also noticed the complaints of the bank and the applicants in G.A.No.2445 of 2010 regarding expenses incurred on several heads in the guise of repair and maintenance works. 5. ON December 21, 2010 a detailed order was passed which, inter alia, referred to the grievances of the bank and some of the occupants at the building. Directions were given for those having any objection to the accounts furnished by the Administrator's assistant and the documents produced in support thereof to file affidavits "indicating the specific charges in respect of the conduct of the administrator's assistant in the matter of receiving funds and expending there from." The plaintiffs and the Administrator's assistant were permitted to use affidavits to deal with such charges. Affidavits were subsequently filed both by the bank and by the applicants in G.A.No.2445 of 2010 but the charges therein were sought to be dealt by the second defendant rather than by the plaintiffs or by the Administrator's assistant. It was only after a subsequent specific direction of Court, that the Administrator's assistant filed a supplementary affidavit on April 20, 2011 wherein the amounts collected by the Administrator's assistant subsequent to the institution of the suit and the abstract of the expenses incurred by the Administrator's assistant during such period were indicated. 6. THE matters were next taken up on mentioning by the Administrator. That was after a second fire broke out at the building. The order dated February 11, 2011 noticed that a First Information Report had been lodged with the Burrabazar Police Station, inter alia, against the Administrator. Such FIR was, subsequently, altogether withdrawn. On February 28, 2011, it was directed that since there was a second fire at the same building, "no compromise need be made for the security of the building" and it was left to the corporation, CESC Ltd. and the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services Authority to suggest and take such measures as were necessary. 7. ON the bank's application, being G.A.No.543 of 2011, for permission to install a generator at the bank premises, an order was made on February 23, 2011 requiring the bank to take steps in accordance with law for such purpose. Such application was disposed of by that order. 7. ON the bank's application, being G.A.No.543 of 2011, for permission to install a generator at the bank premises, an order was made on February 23, 2011 requiring the bank to take steps in accordance with law for such purpose. Such application was disposed of by that order. The parties say that some generator sets were being operated at the building by some of the occupants without requisite permission but no generator set is now being operated. The bank has not been able to obtain permission from the appropriate authority for using a generator set at the bank's portion of the building. The appearing occupants say that since there is an Administrator appointed over and in respect of the building, the appropriate authorities have refused to consider the applications for operating individual generator sets at several parts of the building without there being any approval in such regard by the Administrator. 8. IN course of hearing of the matters, a single-page summary of the money collected and sums spent on account of repair and maintenance works was furnished on behalf of second defendant association. Such abstract accounts, unsupported by any sworn statement, indicated that a sum of Rs.91.30 lakh had been collected since the Administrator was appointed and a sum of Rs.90.80 lakh had been expended out of the same. The expenses were under divers counts including on account of legal charges, payment to CESC, payment to fire contractors, and other sundry heads. The bank and the applicants in G.A.No.2445 of 2010 and the 30 other occupants of the building who supported such applicants sought to point out that despite specific objections taken on their behalf to the accounts and the documents in support thereof furnished by Shroff, there was no plausible explanation proffered or even an attempt at justification of the expenses incurred. IN particular, the bank and the other opposing occupants sought to assail the payment of- a substantial part of the amount collected from the occupants on account of alleged legal expenses. The insinuation was that the plaintiffs had profited from the litigation; that they had through Shroff raised much more money than was necessary for maintenance and repair works and had defalcated a substantial part thereof in the garb of legal expenses. The insinuation was that the plaintiffs had profited from the litigation; that they had through Shroff raised much more money than was necessary for maintenance and repair works and had defalcated a substantial part thereof in the garb of legal expenses. Shroffs affidavit of April 20, 2011 has copies of several documents appended thereto including an abstract of the receipts and collection from the occupants of the building between July 10,2009 and April 19, 2011. The relevant figures at page 13 of such affidavit indicate a total collection of Rs.1,44,37,875/- comprising call money at Rs.125 per sq.ft of Rs.91,21,250/-; a second call of Rs.200 per sq.ft against which only a sum of Rs. 14,85,700/- was received; and, the usual monthly maintenance charges of Rs.2.50p per sq.ft for 21 months for Rs.38,30,925/-. The Administrator's assistant claims that all the money collected from the occupants subsequent to the institution of the suit were deposited in the bank accounts of the second defendant association and prior to the sum of Rs.1,44,37,875/- being deposited, the association had a credit balance of Rs.34, 95, 000/-. 9. PAGES 14 and 15 of Shroffs affidavit of April 20, 2011 detail payments made on account of services obtained and assets acquired. The total spending indicated is Rs.1,77,57,087/- out of which Rs.1,54,31, 534.40 was apparently expended on account of services and the remainder against goods and assets purchased. It is submitted by the plaintiffs on behalf of Shroff that a sum of Rs.10 lakh has now been deposited back in the account as the item "staircase" had either not been acquired or there were no documents in support of such acquisition. The expenses shown on account of the staircase was Rs.9,34,212/-. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs on behalf of Shroff, and corroborated by the bank, that out of the second demand of Rs.200 per sq.ft made on the occupants by the Administrator's assistant under the apparent authority of the Administrator, the sum of Rs.9.6 lakh received from the bank has been refunded. Shroff says that only a handful of the occupants had tendered the amount sought under the second demand and a list of the occupants who had tendered the money is available and Shroff has written to all such occupants to take back the payment tendered pursuant to the second demand. 10. THUS, if the sum of Rs. Shroff says that only a handful of the occupants had tendered the amount sought under the second demand and a list of the occupants who had tendered the money is available and Shroff has written to all such occupants to take back the payment tendered pursuant to the second demand. 10. THUS, if the sum of Rs. 14,85,700/- is deducted from the total collection of Rs.1,44,37,875/- and if the regular maintenance charges of Rs.2.50p per sq.ft (amounting to a total of Rs.38,30,925/- for 21 months) are also disregarded, the additional collection that was effectively made since the suit was instituted, would come to Rs.91,21,250/-. Against such collection, an admitted amount of Rs.60,13,155/- was shown to have been paid on account of legal expenses as would appear from Shroff's accounts at page 14 of his affidavit of April 20, 2011. The order dated July 10, 2009 permitted the Administrator to collect the maintenance charges. It may even be accepted that what the order implied was that in addition to the usual maintenance charges that were paid by the occupants at the building, the unusual situation of the fire and the repair and other works that had been necessitated thereby were required to be met out of the additional funds collected for such purpose by the Administrator. There was, therefore, authority to the Administrator, at least, for collecting funds for the purpose of ensuring that the building was made habitable so that the various commercial occupants thereat could use the premises meaningfully. 11. THE grievance of the bank and of the applicants in G.A.No.2445 of 2010 and their 30 supporters is that huge sums were collected without the building or its occupants benefiting therefrom and without any accounts being rendered in respect thereof. Since all papers and documents in support of the expenditure were required to be taken custody of by the receiver appointed in these proceedings, and since all persons interested have been given inspection thereof, one part of the grievance has already been taken care of. THE other aspect pertains to the application of the funds. Since all papers and documents in support of the expenditure were required to be taken custody of by the receiver appointed in these proceedings, and since all persons interested have been given inspection thereof, one part of the grievance has already been taken care of. THE other aspect pertains to the application of the funds. Though some murmurs are now made that even in respect of the other expenses shown there may not have been any element of transparency, the matter has been taken up primarily on account of the grievance that monies could not be demanded under authority of the order dated July 10, 2009 for the purpose of defraying the legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the institution of this suit and the interlocutory applications therein. THEre is substantial basis in such grievance and there is nothing apparent from any of the orders passed in this suit that could have authorized the Administrator or his assistant to defray the legal expenses allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs or others connected with the present proceedings. 12. BY an order March 31, 2011 it was noticed that one of the areas of dispute that had arisen was in the payment by the Administrator's assistant of a huge sum to Advocates representing the plaintiffs and the second defendant association. Without passing any direction on any person to refund the payment made on account of legal expenses, the order dated March 31, 2011 said that it would be "open to the plaintiffs or the association to make good the entire payment by bringing appropriate instruments for Rs.52 lakh in Court" when the matter was due to appear next. The sum of Rs.52 lakh indicated in such order was on the basis of the abstract one page unsworn statement of accounts handed over to Court on behalf of Shroff or the second defendant association which reflected that a payment of Rs.51.97 lakh had been made on account of legal expenses. On April 19, 2011 a further order noticed that the Administrator's assistant had filed an affidavit on September 20, 2010 but despite several subsequent orders where the accounts had been questioned and his integrity doubted, no affidavit had been affirmed by him. On April 19, 2011 a further order noticed that the Administrator's assistant had filed an affidavit on September 20, 2010 but despite several subsequent orders where the accounts had been questioned and his integrity doubted, no affidavit had been affirmed by him. The Administrator's assistant was directed to file an abstract of the accounts incorporating therein the details as to the payments collected from the occupants of Model House and the expenses incurred from out of such funds. The affidavit of April 20, 2011 from Shroff came only thereafter. The Administrator is represented and is present. It is submitted on behalf of the Administrator that though the order dated July 10, 2009 gave the authority to the Administrator to collect maintenance charges, it was not possible for practising Advocate to do day-to-day collection and since an assistant had been appointed by the same order, it was such assistant who was left to make collections under the ultimate authority of the Administrator. It also does not appear from the reports filed by the Administrator that the Administrator was aware of the manner of application of funds or that a substantial part thereof had been paid to Advocates representing both the plaintiffs and the second defendant association in this suit. 13. ON behalf of Shroff it is submitted that since the present suit was for the purpose of restoring electricity and other facilities at the building and since all occupants thereat stood to benefit therefrom, the plaintiffs and the second defendant association should not be burdened with the entire legal expenses and it was in such circumstances that the legal expenses incurred were met out of the monies collected from the occupants. 14. IT is also a matter of some significance that the first defendant, the original owners of the building and who are in occupation, whether directly or through tenants, of approximately 35% of the total space at Model House has not paid a paisa to the Administrator's assistant on account of maintenance charges or on account of repair or other charges demanded by the Administrator's assistant subsequent to the institution of the suit. There is some basis to the submission on behalf of the plaintiffs and the second defendant association and on behalf of Shroff that the suit was for the ultimate benefit of the occupants thereat, including the first defendant and the tenants under the first defendant, and all occupants were morally obliged to meet the expenses therefor. But what is inescapable is that the order dated July 10, 2009 only permitted the Administrator to realize maintenance charges and no further. Even though such order can be stretched to imply that the expenses that were necessary to be incurred in the aftermath of the devastating fire were also to be realized by the Administrator from the occupants, the order dated July 10, 2009 and the subsequent orders passed in the suit can by no stretch of imagination be interpreted to have given any authority to either the Administrator or his assistant to defray the legal expenses of the plaintiffs or of the second defendant association in respect of the present suit. 15. HOWEVER, the substantial embarrassment of Court has been saved by Shroff and/or the second defendant having unconditionally refunded a sum of Rs.42,35,766 into the till of the second defendant association. As noticed above, all the monies collected pursuant to the demands made on the occupants by the Administrator's assistant were deposited in the accounts of the second defendant and expenses were also incurred therefrom. 16. SINCE the primary grievance was on account of the legal expenses incurred, which by Shroff's admission amounted to Rs.60,13,155.50, it is deemed fit and proper that the occupants of the building who had made payments to the Administrator's assistant following the demands and who now complain of misapplication of funds be immediately refunded the proportionate share of the funds realised from them that had been shown to be expended by way of legal costs. In simple monetary terms that would imply that out of the total collection of Rs.91,21,250/- (the arithmetic appears in one of the previous pages) the sum of Rs.60,13, 155.50/- has to be refunded to such of the occupants of Model House who seek the refund. The expenditure of the said sum of Rs.60,13,155.50/- out of the total collection of Rs.91,21,250 works out to the approximately 65%. The expenditure of the said sum of Rs.60,13,155.50/- out of the total collection of Rs.91,21,250 works out to the approximately 65%. The effect of this order is that occupants of the building who had responded to the call money demands of the Administrator's assistant and had made payment pursuant thereto would be entitled to refund of 65% of the payments made since the entire amount spent on account of legal expenses is found to be unjustified and unauthorised. At the moment, the persons, who have complained of the legal expenses being incurred from out of the funds collected from them, are the bank, the nine applicants in GA No. 2445 of 2010 and the thirty other occupants who support the applicants in GA No. 2445 of 2010. Shroff and/or the second defendant has carried a banker's cheque of Rs.3.42 lakh representing the bank's share of the refund on the premise that 57% of the amount collected from the bank in respect of the first demand had to be returned. The cheque for Rs.3.42 lakh, bearing no.818330 issued by Karur Vysya Bank and dated May 4, 2001, has been made over to advocate representing the bank. Similar cheques on the same basis have been brought by Shroff and/or the second defendant in favour of advocates representing the nine applicants in GA No. 2445 of 2010 and the 30 occupants supporting such applicants. A distinction has been made among the 30 supporters of GA No.2445 of 2010: on the basis of that 15 of them are recorded as owners and occupants according to the second defendant association and the other 15 are not recorded as owners or occupants but are, in fact, occupants and had tendered the payment following the first demand. Cheques drawn on Karur Vysya Bank for Rs.1,49,198 (No.818333 dated May 4, 2011); Rs.1,99,483 (No.881336 dated May 4,2011); and Rs.1,09,867/- (No.818381 dated May 4, 2011) have been made over to advocates representing the 30 supporters (in the first two cases) and advocates representing the applicants in GA No. 2445 of 2010, respectively. 17. SINCE it is found that the amount of Rs.60,13,155.50/- is approximately 65% of the total collection of Rs.91,21,250, the remaining amount should be made over by Shroff and/or the second defendant association to the bank, the applicants in GA No. 2445 of 2010 and their 30 supporters in course of this week. 18. 17. SINCE it is found that the amount of Rs.60,13,155.50/- is approximately 65% of the total collection of Rs.91,21,250, the remaining amount should be made over by Shroff and/or the second defendant association to the bank, the applicants in GA No. 2445 of 2010 and their 30 supporters in course of this week. 18. SHROFF and the second defendant association will put up notices at prominent parts of the building inviting other occupants who had made payment in response to the first demand made by SHROFF after the institution of the suit for obtaining refund of their proportionate shares of the monies tendered. Such notices should be put up within a week from date and it will be open to the other occupants, who had tendered the payment, to obtain a similar refund of 65% thereof within a period of a month from date. After the expiry of such period, it may be presumed that the other occupants who had tendered payments following Shorff's first demand after the institution of the suit have no grievance in the matter relating to the application of the funds including on account of legal expenses incurred. It is submitted on behalf of Shroff and the second defendant association that some of the occupants have expressly waived their right to seek refund of the monies paid following Shroff's first demand from them after the institution of the suit. If such is the case, refunds do not need to be made to the occupants who have expressly acquiesced in the application of the funds. 19. IN matters of the present nature, the Court should ordinarily not step in and seek to administer buildings or appoint an Administrator to oversee the administration thereof. An Administrator, particularly, advocate appointed by Court would hardly have the time or the expertise to undertake such exercise. That is, however, not to suggest that an Administrator can never be appointed, but that the Court should be circumspect and cautious in so doing. 20. DESPITE the Administrator being appointed in July, 2009 and the temporary restoration of the electricity supply to the premises, a second fire broke out at Model House early this year. It was by sheer luck that there was no casualty. 20. DESPITE the Administrator being appointed in July, 2009 and the temporary restoration of the electricity supply to the premises, a second fire broke out at Model House early this year. It was by sheer luck that there was no casualty. The Administrator and the Court would have been morally responsible for any accident, loss of life or such matter since the temporary restoration of the electricity supply was pursuant to orders made by Court without ensuring that the conditions attendant thereto were complied with. DESPITE the temporary restoration of the electricity supply in July, 2009, the conditions set by the licensing authority were not met for some 18 months thereafter as noticed in orders passed in December, 2010 prior to the second, smaller fire that broke out at the said building. Though the Administrator technically still remained over and in respect of the building and had not been removed, the Administrator was not required to discharge any functions subsequent to orders passed in February, 2011. Since complaints had been made as to the application of funds following the collection of money pursuant to the order dated July 10, 2009, the Administrator could not be discharged till such matter was resolved. 21. SINCE the primary grievance of the aggrieved occupants has now been taken care of, the Administrator will immediately remove himself from the building and make over the books and records that may be available with him to the plaintiffs in the suit. For the Administrator's protection, he should retain copies of such letters that had been issued by him to any of the parties or any of the authorities. 22. IT will be open to the occupants of the building to decide on their own future course of occupation of the building whether by setting up an association or by any other means. The matters carried to Court hardly have any legal value for the Court to be of any assistance to the plaintiffs or the occupants in the matter of how they occupy their building and enjoy the facilities thereat. The Court will also not facilitate the non-compliance of the conditions set by the third defendant or any statutory authority for safety measures to put in at a building where there have been two incidents of fire in recent times. The Court will also not facilitate the non-compliance of the conditions set by the third defendant or any statutory authority for safety measures to put in at a building where there have been two incidents of fire in recent times. There will be no further order in operation save the order for refund of payment and invitation to the other occupants who had tendered money following Shorff's first demand to obtain refund thereof. There is no embargo on the statutory and other authorities taking steps in respect of the building and its occupants in accordance with law. There is neither any embargo nor any approval of Court in the matter of generator sets being operated or installed at the said premises or at any part thereof. The Administrator will be entitled to a final remuneration of 2000 GM but it will be open to the Administrator to not accept such payment. 23. THE receiver appointed to take charge of all books and records will hand over all papers and documents to Shroff, who is an office-bearer of the second defendant association. THE receiver will be paid a final remuneration of 1000 GM by the plaintiff's in the suit out of the funds lying to the credit of the second defendant association. Such remuneration should be paid within a week from date and simultaneously with the return of the documents and records by the receiver to Shroff and/or the second defendant association. 24. IT is submitted on behalf of the first defendant that the Administrator had obtained keys to some portions of the building from the first defendant. The keys that had been obtained by the Administrator from the first defendant should be returned to the first defendant against a receipt to be issued by the first defendant in such regard. Since the Administrator was not involved in the day-to-day functioning of the building, no step should be taken by any authority against the Administrator by way of criminal proceedings without the express previous leave of Court. 25. ALL applications in the suit which appear, being GA Nos.1795 of 2009, GA No. 2672 of 2009, GA No.2781 of 2009, GA No. 1576 of 2010 and GA No.2445 of 2010, stand disposed of without any order as to costs. 26. URGENT certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Sra.C.