Judgment

RAJENDRA BABU, J.- For purposes of convenience, we refer to the parties as arrayed in the original suit out of which this appeal arises. ShitaI Chandra Das and Karmadhar Das filed Title Suit No. 77 of 1959 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore against Madhuri Choudhary, daughterin-law of the original lessee of a godo\yn bearing No. 103/1B, Raja Dipendra Street, Calcutta. The sub-tenants Brij Kishore Bhagat, NawaI Kishore Bhagat and Durga Devi Bhagat were also impleaded in the said suit as defendants. The said suit was decreed on 30-9-1963 against all the defendants, including Brij Kishore Bhagat, Nawal Kishore Bhagat and Durga Devi Bhagat. The a plaintiffs in that suit levied execution in Case No. 18 of 1963 in which warrant for delivery of possession of the disputed premises was issued. In the disputed godown there were racks on which oilseeds were stacked. Inasmuch as the said oil seeds could not be immediately removed, the plaintiffs therein obtained delivery of possession of the godown along with the oilseeds stacked in several bags. The said oil seeds were kept in the custody of Sitaram Roy, an officer of the plaintiffs by the process-server of the Court. Thereafter Bank of India, Defendant 1 in the suit, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) claiming that the Bank was in possession of the godown as a pledgee of the goods from an alleged partnership firm, namely, Mis Bansidhar Baijnath and Brij Kishore Bhagat, Durga Devi Bhagat and Nawal Kishore Bhagat, who are stated to be the partners of the said firm. Mis Bansidhar Baijnath, the firm, also filed an application under Order XXI Rules 100 and 101 CPC claiming to be in possession of the godown on the date of the delivery of the possession. These applications were registered as Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 1 and 3 of 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The plaintiffs contended that the present defendants were bound by the decree and the claim of possession of Mis Bansidhar Baijnath or the Bank as pledgee were all baseless. It was also contended that the Bhagat group were in possession of the godown on the date of the delivery of the possession. The defendants filed two separate applications in those two miscellaneous cases for restraining the decreeholders from removing the stacks of oil seeds from the godown. The ad interim injunction was made absolute on the understanding that the miscellaneous cases would be expeditiously disposed of and an inventory of the oil seeds was made by a Commissioner appointed by the Court. Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1972 was filed seeking for a direction upon Defendant 1, the Bank, to remove the said oilseeds on the ground that the plaintiffs were suffering substantial loss daily and the goods were perishable. The Subordinate Judge, Alipore, granted leave to the Bank to remove the f said goods. Defendant 1 Bank, however, applied for modification of the order dated 27-6-1972. A revision petition was filed in the High Court. Before the High Court Defendant 1 withdrew the petition for removal of the said goods and the order of the Subordinate Judge passed on 27-6-1972 was set aside. In view of the indifference by the defendants, the plaintiffs had suffered loss by way of rent and by not delivering the vacant possession to the Bank by obtaining an order of injunction wrongfully and by not removing the goods in spite of the offers made by the plaintiffs and having kept the goods in spite of the offers made by the plaintiffs, the defendants have become liable to pay compensation. A separate suit was also filed for ascertaining the mesne profits and in the suit out of which these proceedings arise, the plaintiffs claimed damages for wrongfully keeping the said alleged oilseeds from 15-1-1972.

2. Defendant 1 Bank, contested the suit. It is pleaded that MIs Bansidhar Baijnath is a partnership firm and a constituent of the Bank which carried on the business of sale and pur