JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 21 dated 1st August, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Burdwan in Title Suit No. 170 of 2015 by which the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected. The plaintiff thus, felt aggrieved. He has come before this Court with this appeal. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. After the appeal was admitted, an interim order of injunction was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards their possession in the suit property and/or the nature and character thereof till the end of January, 2017. The said interim order was subsequently extended. 3. Today, when the appellant's prayer for further extension of the interim order was considered by this Court, we were requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit. Accordingly, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 5. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 6. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition. The parties are close related to each other. The plaintiff claims that his father had several properties at Burdwan. It is alleged by him that his father during the lifetime executed several deeds of gift in favour of his sons bequeathing his various properties to them. According to the plaintiff, his father did not make any settlement of his property lying at L.R. Plot No. 242. He thus, claims that on the death of his father, all the legal heirs and representatives of the said deceased inherited the said plot No. 242 jointly. Since the parties feel inconvenience in possessing the said plot of land being L.R. Plot No. 242 jointly, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration, injunction and partition. 7. He thus, claims that on the death of his father, all the legal heirs and representatives of the said deceased inherited the said plot No. 242 jointly. Since the parties feel inconvenience in possessing the said plot of land being L.R. Plot No. 242 jointly, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration, injunction and partition. 7. After filing the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an injunction order for restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property and from raising any construction over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The relief by way of ad interim injunction was also prayed for by the plaintiff in similar term. The plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge. The said order passed by the learned Trial Judge was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal before this Court. The said appeal which was registered as FMA 4346 of 2015, was disposed of by this Court on 22nd December, 2015 with a direction that the interim order of status quo which was passed by this Court after admitting the said appeal, will continue till the disposal of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. It was made clear that the learned Trial Judge was absolutely free to decide the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in its own wisdom in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the said order. Direction was given for filing affidavits by the parties. Pursuant to such direction passed by this Court, parties exchanged their affidavits in connection with the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge ultimately by the impugned order rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction by holding, inter alia, that from the documents filed by the plaintiff, it appeared that the plaintiff failed to show a prima facie case in respect of the suit plot no. 242 and the plaintiff has not clearly shown as to the present possession of the parties in the suit plot no. 242. 242 and the plaintiff has not clearly shown as to the present possession of the parties in the suit plot no. 242. Before coming to this conclusion, the learned Trial Judge also perused two title deeds filed by the parties and held that the plaintiff acquired title in L.R. Plot No. 235 and L.R. Plot No. 244 and not in Plot No. 242. 8. The legality of such findings of the learned Trial Court is under challenge. 9. The defendants in their affidavit filed in connection with the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, stated that the L.R. Plot No. 242 corresponds to R.S. Plot Nos. 81, 82 and 79. They claimed that R.S. Plot Nos. 81 and 82 which are part of L.R. Dag No. 242 was gifted by their father in their favour. They however, claimed that wrongly the L.R. Plot No. 242 was not mentioned in the deed of gift executed by their father. The deed of gift through which the defendants are claiming title in respect of R.S. Plot Nos. 81 and 82 shows that the L.R. Plot No. 241 was mentioned in the said deed of gift. 10. Be that as it may, no step was taken by the defendants for correction of the said deed. Even no step was taken by the donor to correct the said mistake in the deed, during his lifetime. 11. Be that as it may, fact remains that the description of the gifted property was given by boundaries in the deed of gift. A map and/or plan was also enclosed to the said deed of gift showing the gifted property therein with boundaries. As such, by way of survey, it can be ascertained as to whether the description of the gifted property as mentioned in the deed of gift tallies with L.R. Plot No. 241 or 242. 12. Such ascertainment can very well be done in course of hearing of the suit but not at this stage. 13. We find that the defendants have already completed the brick works and/or casting of roof in a one storied building recently constructed on the suit property. The construction is yet to be completed. Unless the construction is allowed to be completed, the defendants will not be able to use such construction. 13. We find that the defendants have already completed the brick works and/or casting of roof in a one storied building recently constructed on the suit property. The construction is yet to be completed. Unless the construction is allowed to be completed, the defendants will not be able to use such construction. If the suit proceeds for a long time, then the construction will gradually be destroyed and no one will be benefited by destroying the construction, already raised. 14. Since substantial construction has already been raised, we propose to permit the defendants to complete the said construction for making it habitable without extending the said construction anymore either vertically or horizontally. 15. However, since Mr. Uttiya Ray, learned advocate appearing for the appellant was insisting upon continuation of the interim order of injunction which we earlier passed in this appeal till the disposal of the suit, we indicated to him that such interim order of status quo can be continued till the disposal of the suit provided his client is agreeable to deposit at least 10 lacs rupees in the court below so that in the event his client is ultimately found to be unsuccessful, the loss which may be suffered by the defendants for not permitting him to use the said construction during this period, can be compensated out of such deposited money. Mr. Roy did not agree to such proposal of this Court. 16. Under such circumstances, we feel that justice will be sub-served if we permit the defendants to complete the said incomplete construction without extending the said construction either vertically or horizontally anymore. 17. Mr. Debasis Roy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that entire brick works is complete. Casting of roof on the ground floor is also complete. Only the finishing work, such as plastering both inside and outside of such construction, fixation of doors and windows, flooring and electrical works etc. are yet to be completed. 18. Since there is nothing on record as to how far the defendants have raised such construction, we feel that if the defendants are permitted to raise further construction, it will not be possible for the court to hold him responsible if they raise any construction in violation of the court's order. 19. are yet to be completed. 18. Since there is nothing on record as to how far the defendants have raised such construction, we feel that if the defendants are permitted to raise further construction, it will not be possible for the court to hold him responsible if they raise any construction in violation of the court's order. 19. As such, we feel that before permitting the defendants to raise such completion work in the said construction, the extent of such construction should be ascertained first by holding a local inspection by an advocate commissioner. 20. Accordingly, we request the learned Trial Judge to appoint an advocate commissioner as early as possible if any of the parties approaches the learned Trial Judge for doing so that the extent of exact construction raised so far and the nature thereof by the defendants in the suit premises, can be ascertained by the said learned commissioner by holding a local inspection at the building site with a direction upon the learned commissioner to submit his report before the learned Trial Court within a time to be fixed by the learned Trial Court. 21. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 will not be permitted even to commence the work for completion of the said construction before submission of such report by the learned advocate commissioner in the court below. The defendants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 will be permitted to commence the work of completion of such construction in the light of the observations as given above, after submission of the report by the learned advocate commissioner and also after giving intimation to the learned Trial Court about the date of commencement of such work. 22. It is made clear that whenever such completion work will be undertaken by the defendants/respondent nos. 1 and 2, they will strictly adhere to the sanction plan obtained by them from the Municipal Authority for raising such construction therein. 23. We thus, conclude with this observation that any construction which has been so raised by the defendants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the completion work which will be made by the defendant/respondent nos. 1 and 2 will be made by them at their own risk and they will not be permitted to claim any equity for such construction in the event they ultimately fail to succeed in the suit. 24. Both the appeal and the application are, thus, disposed of. 1 and 2 will be made by them at their own risk and they will not be permitted to claim any equity for such construction in the event they ultimately fail to succeed in the suit. 24. Both the appeal and the application are, thus, disposed of. 25. The learned counsel of the parties are permitted to take down the gist of the order and communicate the same to the learned court below and the learned court below is requested to act upon such communication without insisting upon production of the certified copy of the order.