( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order Dated 13/10/1995, passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 727 of 1995 in Notice of Motion in Admiralty Suit No. 46 of 1995. By the impugned order, the Division Bench modified the order of the learned single Judge and directed release of commercial ship M/s. M. V. Kapita Kud. The facts not in dispute are that on 21/07/1995 at around 6. 00 a. m. the International Cable which extends on sea-route from Singapore to France having branches at Bombay, experienced a break and the fault was got identified by the appellant-plaintiff at a distance of about 18. 3 Kms. from its office at Prabhadevi in Greater Bombay whereat its cable station is situated. According to the appellant, due to break of the cable, overseas telecommunication was disrupted. They requisitioned the services of Coast Guard authorities to identify whether any ship had anchored in the vicinity of the break-point. The appellant in that behalf wrote a letter to the Coast Guard authorities on 21/07/1995 itself and requested "to survey the area and identify if any several has anchored there". The co-ordinates of the break point were indicated as 18 deg. 59. 4 N and 72 deg 41. 0 E. On 22/07/1995, Deputy Commandant of the Coast Guard Region (West) had stated thus : "a helicopter reported that a vessel named "kapita Kud" registered ODESSA was found anchored in position 310 PRONGS-0. 9 miles, in 18 deg 58. 5 North and 72 deg 40. 7 East".

( 3 ) THE repairing vessel which repaired the faulted cable found thus : "cable fault caused by Shift anchor". The Coast Guard further found that no other vessel was found in the vicinity. It contacted the vessel on radio and confirmed the position/mark co-ordinates as determined by the helicopter from the vessel itself. On 29/07/1995, the appellant laid the Admiralty Suit No. 46 of 1995 against the respondents-vessel claiming damages of about Rs. 28 crores the break-up whereof has been stated in Exh. `c of the plaint reproduced of Additional Documents filed as Volume I at the exchange rate of Rs. 32 per US Dollar. The appellants had taken Notice of Motion for arrest of the vessel by order dated 29/07/1995, the vessel was arrested and detained by the Sheriff of Bombay. It is also not in dispute that the Captain of the vessel had not made any contact with the appellants for more than one month and for the first time on 1/09/1995 the vessel made an application for its release from arrest by way of Notice of Motion. The learned trial Judge having Admiraly Jurisdiction dismissed the Motion and released the vessel.

( 4 ) SECTION 140 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short, `the Code) provides that in any Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty cause of salvage. . . . . the Court, whether it be exercising its original or its appellate jurisdiction may, in its jurisdiction on request by either party summon to its assistance two competent assessors in the manner stated thereunder and such assessors shall attend and assist the Court accordingly. The Government of India exercising its power under Section 9 (1) of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958) has notified the officers specified in the Schedule to be assessors for the purposes of the said Act. For the Port of Bombay, the officers are Nautical Surveyor, Engineer and Ship Surveyor and Ship Surveyor attached to the Mercantile Marine Department, Bombay District or to the Directorate General of Shipping, Bombay. The Division Bench by its order dated 26/09/1995 directed the assessors to give their estimate of the anchoring position and probable involvement of the first-respondent in the breakage of the cable and gave five directions in that behalf. When the notice was issued, though initially the Captain of the vessel and first respondent responded, later they declined to participate in the proceedings before the assessors. On the basis of the material available and the affidavit filed by the Captain of the