I.P. Mukerji, J.

This is an application by the plaintiff in aid of the above suit. The reliefs claimed are as follows:

“a) The respondent be directed to show-cause as to why it should not be directed to furnish security of Rs.6,42,44,194/-;

b) On failure to show cause and/or sufficient cause, the defendant be directed to furnish security of Rs.6,42,44,194/- and/or its assets and property mentioned in paragraph 25 be attached;

c) The respondent be restrained from dealing with, disposing of, alienating, selling transferring and/or assigning the property mentioned in paragraph 25;

d) The respondent be directed to deposit Rs.15,08,825.30/- per month and/or such other sum as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper;

e) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers aforesaid;

f) Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

The facts tell a tale of how the tentacles of law and its delay prevent real justice to be done between the parties.

The litigation between the parties is raging from 1985, without any abatement. It concerns a large part of a four storied building, which is numbered as premises no. 41, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 071. It is at the junction of Chowringhee Road and Middleton Road, one of the most expensive areas of this city. This part of the city has many commercial establishments.

The defendant occupies 13,235.31 sq. ft. of this building, comprising of 10835.31 sq. ft. on the second floor of the main building and 2400 sq. ft. on the third floor of the annexee building. A further 120 sq. ft. was permitted to be used by them for running a generator.

The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by the plaintiff by a notice dated 17th July, 1984. They were asked to deliver up vacant possession of the premises after August, 1984.

The plaintiff instituted a suit in this court in 1985 against the defendant (Suit No. 440 of 1985) claiming, inter alia, possession of this property.

Now, I come to the most important part of the sequence of events. The parties entered into a Terms of Settlement on 27th March, 1987. By these terms they promised that each would act according to the Indenture of lease dated 9th September, 1986. On 31st March, 1987, this Court passed a compromise decree in accordance with those terms.

Now, the terms of the lease become important, especially, the part providing that it commenced from 1st April, 1986, for a period of 21 years and the covenant that the defendant would “vacate and makeover peaceful possession of the demised premises to the lessor on the expiry of the lease”. Furthermore, there was a provision for periodic escalation of rent.

The plaintiff on their interpretation of the lease and the compromise decree of 31st March, 1987 thought that the defendant had to give them back possession of the property, after the expiry of the lease, in obedience to the compromise decree.

The defendant challenged the authority of the plaintiff to get possession by virtue of the compromise decree. This is manifest from the stand they took when the plaintiff filed an execution case (E.C. 81 of 2007) to enforce the decree. They filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application (G.A. No. 3618 of 2007) was heard by Patherya J. Her ladyship passed a judgment and decree on 12th April, 2012. The Section 47 application was allowed. The decree dated 31st March, 2007 was taken to be a mere endorsement of the lease. If the defendant did not vacate the property after 31st March, 2007, it was seen as a breach of the terms of the lease only and not as a breach of the terms of the decree, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Vs. Baldev Krishna Thapar reported in (1969) 3 SCC 611.

I am told that the plaintiff preferred an appeal from the decree which is still pending.

Meanwhile, the defendant filed a suit (C.S. No. 64 of 2007) against the plaintiff for the following reliefs:

“a) Th