THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3895 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 31.07.2008, in C.M.A.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, was allowed setting aside the order, dated 19.09.2005, in I.A.No.980 of 2005 in O.S.No.442 of 2005 on the file of the learn e d Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, wherein temporary mandatory injunction was granted, directing restoration of the service connection to the plaintiff’s premises. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore electricity for the service connection Nos.430, 354 and 441, which are alleged to have been disconnected on the ground of default in payment of the arrears of the electricity charges. He also filed I.A.No.980 of 2005 seeking restoration of the service connection pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court, by order, dated 19.09.2005, directed restoration of the service connection. Respondents herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 2006. By the impugned order, dated 31.07.2008, the learned Senior Civil Judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff. 4. As seen from the impugned order, petitioner herein, who was the respondent in the appeal, was set ex parte after ordering notice by way of substituted service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no notice was served in the appeal on the petitioner herein and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear before the Court and he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. He would further submit that the suit, having been filed in the year, 2005, a direction may be given for expeditious disposal of the suit itself. 6. While ordering notice before admission in the Civil Revision Petition, interim suspension of the impugned order was granted, but subsequently it was vacated. 7. In the circumstances, as the suit is filed in the year, 2005 and the relief prayed for in the suit is also for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore the service connection, it is considered inappropriate to go into the merits of the case at this interlocutory stage, six years after filing of the suit, inasmuch as the same contentions would have to be considered in the trial of the suit also. It is therefore directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th August, 2011. Tsy