IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 559 OF 2000 Between: Erraballi Vasantha Rao, Warangal. ......petitioner AND 01. AP TRANSCO Rep.by its Chairman, Hyderabad. 02. The SuperintendingEngineer, AP TRANSCO, Warangal. 03. M/s.Kakatiya Hotel Pvt.Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Warangal. 04. M/S.Ashoka Enterprises Through partner P.Vengaiah, Hanamkonda. 05. E.Sriranga Rao, Warangal. 06. Erraballi Prahlada Rao, Warangal. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: A.Sudarshan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the common order of the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.736 of 1998 and I.A.No.17 of 1999 in O.S.No.307 of 1998. Both the said applications were moved under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 respectively with a prayer as follows: I.A.736 of 1998 was filed with a prayer to restrain the defendants 1 to 3 from discontinuing of supply of Electric power to HT-consumer No.16 and from the transfer of its accessories described in the schedule. The relief sought in I.A.17 of 1999 was for seeking mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to deposit a sum of Rs.4,09,180/- in the Court, which was said to be deposited by Ashoka Enterprises. Both the said applications were rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. 2. Against the orders of this nature, appeals are provided under Order XLI Rule 1 (‘r’) CPC, but the revision under Section 115 CPC cannot be entertained. The revision petition, therefore, is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR,J) 21st August, 2009. Ivd