( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5028 OF 2006 Sham Oil Industries, through Special Power of Attorney Holder Shri Shyam Vasudeo Agrawal PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.P. Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for the respondent No. 1/State. Mr. Kiran Nagarkar, advocate holding for Mr. H.T. Joshi, advocate for the respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th February, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner filed suit (Spl.C.S. No. 100/1998). The petitioner’s contention was that the electricity supply was unlawfully disconnected and there was improper billing by the M.S.E. Board. 3. The trial Court granted status quo order on 5th March, 1998. It is undisputed that on 27th September, ( 2 ) 2000, the suit came to be dismissed in default. The suit was restored to its original position on 9th October, 2003. In the meanwhile, the electricity supply was disconnected on 27th June, 2003 by the M.S.E. Board. 4. Consequent upon restoration of the suit, the petitioner filed application for taking action under Order XXXIX Rule-2A of the Civil Procedure Code, alleging that the respondents committed breach of the temporary injunction order and were liable to be dealt with either by attachment of the properties, or effecting arrest of the concerned officers. The application came to be dismissed by the impugned order (Exh-J). 5. The contention of Mr. Chavan for the petitioner is that after restoration of the suit, the injunction order also came to be restored and, therefore, breach of the directions of the Court could be penalized appropriately. I find it difficult to countenance such argument. It is important to note that there was only status quo order which was granted exparte and that too came to be vacated soon after the suit was dismissed in default on 27-09-2000. There is no automatic revival of ( 3 ) such order after restoration of the suit. Even assuming that such order is revived on 09-10-2003, yet, the disconnection was made on 27-06-2003 i.e. prior to restoration of the suit. At the relevant time, there was no prohibitory order operative against the respondents. It cannot be, therefore, said that the respondents intentionally committed breach of the temporary injunction order or the status quo order, as the case may be, and hence, the dismissal of the application by the trial Court vide the impugned order cannot be faulted with. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp5028-06