MUKHERJEE, J.

(1). This is an appeal against order No. 29 dated February 6, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Seventh Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Miscellaneous Case No. 163 of 2006.

(2). By the order impugned, the learned Trial Judge rejected an application for injunction filed by the petitioner in the said miscellaneous case on contest with costs.

(3). The factual background leading to filing of this case are as under : The decree holders instituted Ejectment Suit No. 20 of 1981 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against their tenants, namely, Md. Herasatulla and Afzaluddin Ahmed, for their eviction on the ground of subletting.

(4). In the said suit an application for compromise was filed and the suit was decreed on compromise. The compromise decree was put to execution giving rise to Ejectment Execution Case No. 163 of 1985. However, ejectment execution case was transferred to the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta and the case was re-numbered as Ejectment Execution Case No. 147 of 2000.

(5). In the meantime, the appellant, namely, Asgar Ali, filed Title Suit No. 1657 of 1985 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, inter alia, claiming to be a legal sub-tenant in respect of one shop room in the suit premises. It was alleged in the plaint that the compromise decree obtained in Title Suit No. 20 of 1981 being collusive was bad and not binding on the said Asgar Ali and the said Asgar Ali was a tenant in respect of the said shop room under the decree holders.

(6). By order No. 20 dated July 19, 1986 the learned Judge, Third Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, allowed the said application for injunction and restrained the decree holders from proceeding with the Ejectment Execution Case No. 163 of 1985.

(7). The decree holders preferred an appeal before this Court, which was registered as First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 697 of 1986. By the judgment and order dated December 11,1986 a division bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order allowing the application for temporary injunction.

(8). A group of alleged sub-tenants applied for their addition in the said Title Suit No. 1657 of 1985 as defendants. The said application for addition of parties was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by order dated June 13, 1991. The applicants challenged the said order by moving an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court, which gave rise to Civil Order No. 2370 of 1991.

(9). Narendra Krishna Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) issued notice on the said revisional application and, also, granted stay of all further proceedings in the said Title Suit No. 1657 of 1985 for a limited period. By efflux of time the order of stay was vacated.

(10). By order dated September 21, 1993 the learned Judge, Tenth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, dismissed the said Title Suit No. 1657 of 1985 for default. Subsequently, however, the records of the said suit have been destroyed.

(11). In view of the dismissal of the Title Suit No. 1657 of 1985, the decree holders proceeded with the execution case and obtained delivery of possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree.

(12). Asgar AN on or about November, 21, 2005 filed an application under Order 21, Rules 99 to 104, inter alia, claiming for restoration of possession of the said shop room. The said application has, since, been registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 349 of 2005 before the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta. In connection with the said Miscellaneous Case 349 of 2005, the said Asgar Ali moved an application for injunction praying for restoration of possession of the said shop room and to restrain the decree holders from changing the nature and character of the said shop room.

(13). The learned Judge in the executing Court, however, by the order dated November 28,2005, declined to pass any ad interim order of injunction in connection with the said application for te