1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8975/2006 {Kana Ram & Others Versus Ramji Lal & Others} Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Pankaj Gupta for the petitioners Mr. M.M.Ranjan for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Ranjan appears for contesting respondents no. 1 to 12. The other respondents are only proforma parties, therefore, their service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed electricity connection on the well situated in agriculture land bearing khasra no. 1056 alongwith an application for temporary injunction which was contested by the defendants – respondents by filing a reply. The trial court vide its order dated 25th August, 2005 allowed the application and restrained the defendants from shifting the electricity connection from the disputed well. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants 2 preferred an appeal and first appellate court vide its order dated 31st October, 2006 set- aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal with certain conditions as mentioned in para 16 of the impugned order passed by the first appellate court. Being aggrieved with the same, the present plaintiffs-petitioners have preferred this writ petition. This court while issuing notice to show cause to respondents way back on 1st December, 2006 passed an interim stay order maintaining status-quo with regard to the electricity connection as it exists on that day to be maintained. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below while allowing and dismissing the application for temporary injunction and after considering the same I find that the ends of justice will meet in case the interim stay order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2006 is allowed to continue during the pendency of the suit with a direction to trial court to decide the suit as early as possible but not later than six months from today. 5. Consequently the writ petition is 3 allowed. The impugned order dated 31st October, 2006 passed by the first appellate court is set-aside. The interim stay order passed by this Court on 1st December, 2006 shall continue during the pendency of the suit. The trial court is directed to decide the suit itself as early as possible but not later than six months from today. 6. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 7. A copy of this order may be sent to the concerned court for compliance. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK