JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. The entire dispute in the present application appears to revolve around the issue of car parking at Premises No. 12 Dr. U.N. Brahmachari St. Kolkata-17 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises'). The said premises is a multi-storied building with several flats. The plaintiffs are owners/occupants of Flat Nos. 7B and 6B of the said premises. The petitioners being Aloke Kr. Somani and his wife Manjushree Somani claim to be assignees of Flat Nos. 9A and 9B at the said premises and are residing at the said two flats. In June, 1991 the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit with leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for diverse reliefs. Essentially, the suit is in the nature of an administration suit in respect of the said premises. In the said suit the petitioners have filed the present application. Contention of the petitioners: 2. Along with the said two flat nos. 9A and 9B the petitioners acquired two car parking spaces at the said premises. They have also taken on rent one car parking space from one M/s. M.C. Sarkar & Sons being the owner of flat no 4 at the said premises. The petitioners as also some other flat owners were originally allotted car parking space in the basement of the building but the same is inaccessible because of inherent defects in the structure of the building. As such, those who owned car parking space in the basement have been parking their vehicle on the ground floor open area along the driveway. 3. In the above suit by an order dated 24th August, 1991 Joint Administrators were appointed over the said premises. Since then, the said premises have continued to be under Joint Administrators although the personnel of such Joint Administrators have changed from time to time. 4. The common passage on the ground floor which is used for car parking and for ingress and egress of vehicle is from Loudon Street to Moira Street. At all material times the Loudon Street gate used to be kept locked and both ingress and egress used to be through Moira Street. This was the position till the Louden Street gate was opened sometime around July, 2006. 5. The petitioners' cars are parked in their allotted space on the Louden Street side of the common passage which is over 13 ft. This was the position till the Louden Street gate was opened sometime around July, 2006. 5. The petitioners' cars are parked in their allotted space on the Louden Street side of the common passage which is over 13 ft. wide while the passage on the Moira Street side is even wider. 6. The petitioner no. 1 along with other persons have made an application in the present suit being GA No. 2100 of 2005 for discharging the Joint Administrators and for handing over charge of the suit premises to a democratically elected committee of flat owners. The said application is still pending. 7. Particularly after filing of the said application the Joint Administrators started harassing the petitioners in various manners as regards the parking of the petitioners' cars. Accordingly, the petitioners were compelled to move an application being GA No. 2182 of 2006 praying for, inter-alia, an order of injunction restraining the Joint Administrators from interfering with the parking of the petitioners' three cars on the ground floor inside the said premises. An interim order dated 26th July, 2006 was passed by this Court allowing the petitioners to continue parking their cars in the said premises without blocking the driveway. However, on 7th August, 2006 this court vacated the interim order and refused the petitioners prayer for extension of such order. 8. An appeal preferred against the order dated 7th August, 2006 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 11th August, 2006 which was to the following effect:- "After hearing the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal and the application are both disposed of by the following order after treating the appeal as on the day's list. There shall be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b). All undertakings are discharged. This is a suit filed in representative character. Therefore, the orders to be passed herein shall be binding upon all the flat owners. This Court is informed that the basement, due to some defects arising out of the drawing and design originally prepared, is unusable and keeping in view the safety of the building as a whole the erstwhile Joint Administrators have walled up the basement. As a result, the basement is not usable for the purpose of parking cars. This Court is informed that the basement, due to some defects arising out of the drawing and design originally prepared, is unusable and keeping in view the safety of the building as a whole the erstwhile Joint Administrators have walled up the basement. As a result, the basement is not usable for the purpose of parking cars. Naturally, the applicants who are entitled under the agreement entered into between the appellants and the promoters to park their cars in the basement were allowed to park their cars on the driveway. The Fire Department out of their concern for the safety and security of the residents of the multistoried building have issued, inter alia, the following decision:- 4. The entrance into the building through the Loudon St. shall always be kept open and unlocked condition to facilitate immediate evacua of the huge numbers of persons occupying the building, in the event of fire and emergency. In order to comply with the aforesaid direction of the Fire Department, the Joint. Administrators requested the appellants to remove their cars from that portion of the driveway which opens on the Loudon St. side. If the appellants do not park their cars where they have been parking for a pretty long time, pursuant to orders of Court, then they have no other space for the purpose of parking cars, whereas they are entitled under the agreement entered into between them and the promoters to have parking space. It is in these circumstances the appellant made an application in the pending suit wherein an ad-interim order staying the operation of the directions issued by the Joint Administrators was passed which has subsequently not been extended and has as such ceased to be operative. After hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the Joint Administrators should at once take steps for repair and/or remodeling of the basement in consultation with the flat owners and those who are entitled to park their cars therein. The consultation is limited to eliciting their views in order to implement this order. However, the Joint Administrators have to repair and/or remodel the basement on the advice to be obtained from competent engineers. The cost of such repair and/or remodeling shall be borne by the beneficiaries of the basement equally. This work of repair and/or remodeling should be completed within six months from date. However, the Joint Administrators have to repair and/or remodel the basement on the advice to be obtained from competent engineers. The cost of such repair and/or remodeling shall be borne by the beneficiaries of the basement equally. This work of repair and/or remodeling should be completed within six months from date. The Joint Administrators shall also consider whether necessary apparatus should be purchased in order to bail out water in case of water-logging. The cost of such apparatus should also be borne by the beneficiaries of the basement equally. So long as the basement is not repaired and/or remodelled within the time stipulated above, the appellants shall be entitled to continue to park their cars at the existing place. The appellants shall try to see as far as possible, not to create any hindrance to others. The Joint Administrators shall hold a meeting of the flat owners within three weeks from date after service of notice to them and thereafter shall take expeditious steps for the purpose of carrying out this order. Before parting with this matter, we express our desire that the flat owners should take expeditious steps to form their own cooperative for the purpose of managing their own affairs viz. the maintenance and upkeep of the building/buildings and the sooner it is done is better. The beneficiaries of the basement have to bear the cost of repair and/or remodelling. They can suggest ways and means to economize but they cannot, in any event, avoid to make payment of their share." 9. The Joint Administrators, however, have not commenced the work of either repairing or remodeling the basement as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 10. The basement of the said building is earmarked as a car parking space. Since 24th August, 1981 the basement was under lock and key of the Joint Administrators. 11. Recently the petitioners have noticed that the lock of one of the entrances to the basement has been broken and a security guard has been posted at a portion of the basement and some scaffoldings have been erected ostensibly for the purpose of some repairing work. The security guard and the men engaged in repairing works refused to answer the petitioner's query as to for whom they were working. 12. The petitioners brought the aforesaid to the notice of the Joint Administrators who advised the petitioners to obtain appropriate orders from this Court. The security guard and the men engaged in repairing works refused to answer the petitioner's query as to for whom they were working. 12. The petitioners brought the aforesaid to the notice of the Joint Administrators who advised the petitioners to obtain appropriate orders from this Court. Hence the present application. 13. The petitioners apprehend that the basement has been opened and repairing works are being done thereat illegally for the purpose of putting the basement into improper use. The basement cannot be used until and unless proper maintenance as directed by the order dated 11th August, 2006 is carried out. The basement was meant for car parking only and cannot be put to any other use. There is a partition wall impeding cars being parked in the basement which was built by the promoters in total deviation from the sanctioned plan. Hence the ingress and egress points for the vehicles to and from the basement are the same. This is very dangerous and it is absolutely necessary that the partition wall be demolished so that the cars entering from one gate can exist through the other gate. There are structural defects in the basement which require attention and correction in design and structure of the car parking. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid averments the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:- "(a) Order directing the Joint Administrators to ensure that no repair work is carried out at the basement by any person in any manner whatsoever. (b) Order directing the Joint Administrators to take adequate police protection for the purpose of implementation of the order that may be passed herein. (c) Order directing the Officer-In-Charge, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Division) to render adequate police protection to the Joint Administrators to implement the order that may be passed herein. (d) Order directing the Joint Administrators to take expeditious steps for the purpose of implementing the order dated 11th August, 2006. (e) Order directing that no repair work or any work of any kind be carried out at the basement by any person whatsoever till such time the order dated 11th August, 2006 is not implemented. (d) Order directing the Joint Administrators to take expeditious steps for the purpose of implementing the order dated 11th August, 2006. (e) Order directing that no repair work or any work of any kind be carried out at the basement by any person whatsoever till such time the order dated 11th August, 2006 is not implemented. (f) An order be passed directing the Joint Administrators so see that the main entrances to the basement cannot be under control of any individual person or persons and that Joint Administrators should hold the keys and the control over ingress and egress points of the basement; (g) An order be passed directing the Joint Administrators to break the partition wall inside the basement so that ingress and egress points for the cars proposed to be parked inside the basement are separated as the same is vital for giving effect to Hon'ble Court's order dated 11th August, 2006; (h) An order be passed directing the Joint Administrators to undertake necessary civil and structural work so that stairs at one of the entry/exit points of the basement are converted into a slope for entry/exit of the vehicles." 15. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to this Court's order dated 24th August, 1981 and submitted that pursuant to the said order the Joint Administrators were appointed over the entirety of the subject building. As such, no addition or alteration in any portion of the building including the basement could be carried out without the leave of the Court. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the report of the Joint Administrators dated 18th April, 2013. It would appear from the said report that the padlocks of the rolling shutter of the closed gates have been broken and private security guards have been posted thereat. The ramp leading to the basement has been converted into staircase. Several cubicles have been constructed in the car parking area with arrangement of electrical fittings therein. The partition wall dividing the basement in two portions, constructed earlier, has been reinforced. The nature and character of the basement has completely been changed on one side of the partition so as to cater to needs other than car parking. Several cubicles have been constructed in the car parking area with arrangement of electrical fittings therein. The partition wall dividing the basement in two portions, constructed earlier, has been reinforced. The nature and character of the basement has completely been changed on one side of the partition so as to cater to needs other than car parking. At many places in that particular side of the basement printed handbills have been pasted mentioning that the property belongs to Angad Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The Joint Administrators closed the gate leading to the portion of the basement wherein construction work was going by rolling down the shutter of the gate and put their own padlocks to prevent further construction till further order of the Court and sealed the padlocks. 16. It further appears from the said report that letters were written by Angad Merchants Pvt. Ltd. to the Joint Administrators claiming to be registered owner/sub lease holder of a portion of the basement of the said building. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said Angad Merchants had no right title or interest in respect of any portion of the said building and was in the process of converting a portion of the basement to retail stores illegally and in violation of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Building Rules. 17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that an order of injunction passed in a proceeding cannot be modified or altered in a parallel or collateral proceeding. In support of his proposition Ld. Counsel relied on a decision in the case of Farhd K. Wadia v. Union of India reported in 2009 2 SCC 442 in paragraphs 13 and 14. In that case the Supreme Court observed that in an earlier public interest litigation the High Court had admittedly passed an order of injunction. If the same was required to be modified or clarified or relaxation was to be prayed for, the appellant should have filed an application in the said proceeding. An independent public interest litigation to obtain a relief which would be contrary to and inconsistent with the order of injunction passed by the Court was not maintainable as, inter-alia, the doctrine of comity and amity demands the same. Ld. Counsel then submitted that even an erroneous order, unless set aside by a higher forum is binding. An independent public interest litigation to obtain a relief which would be contrary to and inconsistent with the order of injunction passed by the Court was not maintainable as, inter-alia, the doctrine of comity and amity demands the same. Ld. Counsel then submitted that even an erroneous order, unless set aside by a higher forum is binding. In this connection, he relied on two decisions reported in 2011 (1) SCC 197 and in AIR 1962 SC 1621 . This is a well-established proposition of law and I refrain from discussing the two decisions in detail. 18. He then submitted that if an order is not challenged and has attained finality, then res judicata will apply even at the interlocutory stage. The principal of res judicata applies at different stages of the same suit. In this connection, Ld. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of Chairman, Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Iftikher Khan reported in 2008 1 CHN 516 , paragraphs 10 and 11. 19. Ld. Advocate then submitted that by the order dated 11th August, 2006, the Division Bench ordered remodelling of the basement. This was in the interest of the flat owners. He submitted that if any particular party is inconvenienced by reason of such remodelling, even then the Division Bench order must be complied with. The smaller interest of any such party must give way to the larger interest of the several flat owners. In this connection he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Preeti Singha Ray v. Calcutta Tramways Co. reported in AIR 1986 Cal. 305 para 14. 20. The next submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners was that the contention of Angad Merchants that deeds of assignment in favour of the petitioners cannot be looked into and should be impounded since these were unstamped and unregistered documents, is unacceptable. The question of impounding arises at the trial of the suit. At the interlocutory stage the documents can be looked into. In this connection, he relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Abheya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. SSIPL Retail Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) CHN 203 paras 18 to 21. Contention of Angad Merchants:- 21. Appearing on behalf of Angad Merchants, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Ld. In this connection, he relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Abheya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. SSIPL Retail Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) CHN 203 paras 18 to 21. Contention of Angad Merchants:- 21. Appearing on behalf of Angad Merchants, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Counsel, submitted that although the suit was instituted after obtaining leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no advertisement has been published as yet and as such the suit has not assumed a representative character. Therefore, the Court will not have jurisdiction over a dispute between two parties who are not parties to the suit. 22. Mr. Mitra then submitted that Angad Merchants is the registered sublessee in favour of a portion of the basement and the Administrators never took possession of such portion. Angad Merchants is in possession of its portion of the basement and the same cannot be interfered with. 23. Mr. Mitra then submitted that the deeds of assignment in favour of the petitioners being unstamped and unregistered documents, the same could have been looked into had the present application been an interlocutory application in aid of the suit. But this is not so. Hence, the petitioner's locus standi to maintain the application is not established. In any event, the petitioners' car parking space is not in the portion of the basement in respect of which Angad Merchants is the registered sub-lessee and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to complain of anything that Angad Merchants may be doing in its portion of the basement. 24. It was then submitted on behalf of Angad Merchants that the basement was regularised by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation on 16th May, 2006. He drew Court's attention to an order dated 16th May, 2006 passed by the Special Officer (Buildings) KMC, copy whereof is annexure-E to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of Angadh Merchants. In the said order it is recorded, inter-alia, that in view of Building Rule 1995 (2) (h) since the basement is used as retail shops and the building is totally centrally air conditioned, there is no bar for regularisation of unauthorized change of use. In the said order it is recorded, inter-alia, that in view of Building Rule 1995 (2) (h) since the basement is used as retail shops and the building is totally centrally air conditioned, there is no bar for regularisation of unauthorized change of use. Further, if the unauthorized change of use is not regularised many persons who now earned their livelihood from those shops shall loose their jobs in these hard days of unemployment. 25. Mr. Mitra then submitted that the administrators never took possession of the subject building or the basement thereof and, as such, there could be no question of Angad Merchants interfering with the possession of the administrators. In this connection he relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Ltd. v. Alpine Industries Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 Bombay 304 wherein the Bombay High Court observed that the mere appointment of receiver by itself does not vest the property in him. Possession has to be taken. 26. Referring to the deeds of assignment in favour of the petitioners, Mr. Mitra submitted that even if these two documents are construed as agreements for sale, they require stamping under Section 40 of the Stamp Act read with Articles 5 and 11 of Schedule 1 thereto. The documents being unstamped, they must be impounded. In this connection he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi reported in 2008 4 SCC 720 . In paragraph 16 of the said judgment the Apex Court has observed that when a document is produced before a person who is authorised to receive evidence and a person who is in charge of a public office before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced, it is the duty of such person before whom the said instrument is produced to impound the document if it is not duly stamped. The use of word shall in Section 33(1) of the Stamp Act shows that there is no discretion in the authority mentioned in Section 33(1) to impound a document or not to do so. The word shall does not mean may but means shall. It is mandatory to impound such an unstamped document. Mr. The use of word shall in Section 33(1) of the Stamp Act shows that there is no discretion in the authority mentioned in Section 33(1) to impound a document or not to do so. The word shall does not mean may but means shall. It is mandatory to impound such an unstamped document. Mr. Mitra also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in AIR 2009 SC 1489 . In paragraph 17 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed that Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document and the Court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto. 27. The third decision referred to in this connection was in the case of SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 14 SCC 66 . In paragraph 20 of the judgment the Apex Court observed that Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a duty upon a person having by law authority to receive evidence before whom an unregistered instrument chargeable with duty is produced, to examine the instrument in order to ascertain whether it is duly stamped. If it is found that the instrument is not duly stamped, it has to be impounded and dealt with as per Section 38 of the Stamp Act. 28. Mr. Mitra then contended that the petitioners have no proprietary right in respect of the flats they occupied in the subject building or in respect of any portion of the basement thereof. This is because the deeds of assignment in favour of the petitioners being unregistered documents, no proprietary right could have passed to or in favour of the petitioners by reason of such documents. In this connection he relied on a decision of the Apex court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana reported in 2012 1 SCC 656 . In paragraphs 18, 19 and 24 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed that the transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In paragraphs 18, 19 and 24 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed that the transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. Any contract of sale which is not a registered deed of conveyance would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act.) Section 54 of the TP Act stipulates that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter. 29. Finally Mr. Mitra submitted by relying on paragraph 26 of the decision in the case of Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhury reported in AIR 2007 SC 215 that a disputant is entitled to an interim order, provided he is a party thereto. If for one reason or the other, he cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceeding, the court would have no jurisdiction to pass any interim order in his favour. Petitioners in reply:- 30. Referring to the order dated 24th August, 1981 whereby the Joint Administrators were appointed over the subject building, Mr. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Administrators have been in charge of the building since their date of appointment and it is incorrect for Angad Merchants to contend that the Administrators never took possession of the portion of the basement in respect whereof Angad Merchants claims to be a registered sub-lessee. The Joint Administrators have been in charge of the entire building including the basement. 31. As regards the point of impounding of documents, Mr. Banerjee submitted that stamping of the documents at this stage is irrelevant since the petitioners are not tendering any unstamped document at this stage. All the petitioners are seeking to do is to implement the Division Bench order dated 11th August, 2006. Court's View:- 32. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Banerjee submitted that stamping of the documents at this stage is irrelevant since the petitioners are not tendering any unstamped document at this stage. All the petitioners are seeking to do is to implement the Division Bench order dated 11th August, 2006. Court's View:- 32. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners, who are not parties to the suit, can maintain the instant application. While it is not disputed that the suit was instituted with leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is contended on behalf of Angad Merchants that no notice of the suit having been published as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 8 (2) of the CPC, the suit has not assumed representative character and, as such, a non-party to the suit cannot maintain any application therein. Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC is reproduced hereunder:- "8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest.- (1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit:- (a) One or more of such persons, may with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested; (b) The court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. (2) The court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested, either by person service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the court in each case may direct. (3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended under sub-rule (1), may apply to the court to be made a party to such suit. (3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended under sub-rule (1), may apply to the court to be made a party to such suit. (4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of Rule 1 Order 23, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that order, unless the court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2). (5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit. (6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be. Explanation.-For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be." 33. There is nothing on record to show that notice of the suit has been given to all persons interested therein either by personal service or by public advertisement. Would that mean that a party who is similarly interested in the suit as the plaintiff is precluded from filing an application in the suit for appropriate reliefs even if he has actual notice of the suit? In my opinion, the answer must be in the negative. The provision of notice is there so that a party who would be bound by a decree passed in a representative suit does not find that he is bound by a decree without even having notice of the suit. The entire purpose of serving notice, be it individual notice or public notice, is to make all such persons aware that a representative suit has been filed so that such persons, if they choose can come forward and either support or oppose the cause. The entire purpose of serving notice, be it individual notice or public notice, is to make all such persons aware that a representative suit has been filed so that such persons, if they choose can come forward and either support or oppose the cause. I am of the view that a person having actual notice of the suit, even though the plaintiff has not served notice as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 8 (2) of the CPC, is entitled to make an application in the suit praying for reliefs which are within the scope of the suit. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Calcutta Swimming Club v. Deokinandan Bubna reported in 1993 (1) CLJ 279 that even though the proper course is to obtain leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC before the institution of the suit, but if that is not done the Rule does not forbid leave being granted afterwards. Leave under the said Rule may be granted even after the institution of the suit and even at the appellate stage by allowing an amendment if such amendment does not materially change the nature of the suit. It, thus, follows that time to issue notice of the suit may be extended by the Court and such notice can be issued privately or by public advertisement at any stage of the suit. It is merely that until such notice is issued a nonparty who is not before the Court will not be bound by any order or decree passed in the action. 34. One cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Division Bench in its order dated 11th August, 2006, has observed that the suit has been filed in a representation character. 35. Accordingly the first issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and I hold that the instant application is maintainable. 36. Diverse allegations and counter-allegations have been made against each other by the appearing parties. The petitioners contend that Angad Merchants has illegally taken possession of a portion of the basement of the subject building and has made illegal construction thereat with a view to using the same as retail shop which is impermissible even under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Rules. Diverse allegations and counter-allegations have been made against each other by the appearing parties. The petitioners contend that Angad Merchants has illegally taken possession of a portion of the basement of the subject building and has made illegal construction thereat with a view to using the same as retail shop which is impermissible even under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Rules. On the other hand, Angad Merchants has contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the application inasmuch as the deeds of assignment relied upon by them are unregistered and unstamped documents which confer no proprietary right, title or interest on the petitioners in respect of the two flats occupied by them. They claim to be registered sub-lessees of the disputed portion of the basement of the subject building and state that the petitioners are not allottes of car parking space in the portion of the basement which is in their occupation and for that reason also the petitioners lack locus standi to maintain the application. However, according to me, these are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided on evidence and can only be decided at a regular trial. 37. However, what is not disputed is that an order dated 11th August, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in an appeal preferred by the petitioners is in existence. By the said order the Division Bench directed the Joint Administrators to take immediate steps for repair and/or remodelling of the basement after obtaining advise of competent engineers and the cost of such work would be borne by the beneficiaries of the basement equally. The work of repair and/or remodelling was to be completed within six months from the date of the order. The Joint Administrators were also directed to consider whether necessary apparatus should be purchased to drain out water in case of water-logging. 38. The petitioners prayed that the Joint Administrators should take expeditious steps for the purpose of implementing the Division Bench order dated 11th August, 2006. Angad Merchants contends that the said order was obtained by suppressing their presence in the disputed portion of the basement and behind its back. 39. I am not a little surprised that the Joint Administrators have not taken steps till date to implement the Division Bench order dated 11th August, 2006. No appeal was preferred from that order and it has attained finality. 39. I am not a little surprised that the Joint Administrators have not taken steps till date to implement the Division Bench order dated 11th August, 2006. No appeal was preferred from that order and it has attained finality. It is not stated by Angad Merchants as to when they became aware of the said order. The fact remains that Angad Merchants has not taken any steps till date to assail the said order. The said order having reached finality, the same ought to be implemented immediately. Until such implementation, no repair work or any other work should be carried out in the basement of the subject building by any other person. 40. Accordingly this application is partly allowed. There shall be an order in terms of the prayers (d) and (e) of the petition. In the facts of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.