CMPMO No.218 of 2010 25.6.2010 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for the petitioner. According to the petitioner the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the interim order dated 13th October, 2009, which was lastly extended on 2nd June, 2010. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.513 of 2007 titled as A. D. Hydro Power Ltd. Versus State of HP & Others on 17th March, 2010 had directed the respondents therein to dispose of the pending applications before various statutory authorities. While deciding the writ petition the Court also passed the following directions:- “The petitioner may also apprise the Civil Courts regarding the ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court in exercise of the powers by the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 so that the developmental project may not be unnecessarily and unduly delayed. We direct the State Government and all the authorities concerned to render a helping hand to the petitioner so that the developmental project, which was originally scheduled to commerce commercial operation on 01.06.2008 is able to commence the commercial production at least by 1.06.2010 Submission of the petitioner that they are ready to deposit the compensation with the Deputy Commissioner forthwith is recorded. The writ petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.” Admittedly respondent here in was not a party in the said petition. The respondent herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner herein from laying high tension electrical lines on his suit property. In the said suit the Court passed the following interim order on 13th October, 2009:- “Present: Sh. Chuneshwar Thakur, Advocate for the applicant. Sh. T. C. Verma, Advocate for the respondents. Reply not ready. Prayed for time, which prayer after due consideration is allowed. To come up for filing reply on 12.11.2009. Till then, respondents are directed not to lay electric lines over the suit land.” Now in the presence of the petitioner herein, this order was extended from time to time till 23rd December, 2009. The order sheet placed on record (Annexure-P3) reveals that the same was not extended on the subsequent dates of hearing i.e. on 01.01.2010, 11.01.2010, 15.01.2010 and on 24.01.2010 when the matter was adjourned for 22nd of February, 2010. However, on the subsequent two dates i.e. 27th February, 2010 and 18th March, 2010 the matter was adjourned as talks of compromise were going on between the parties. On 15th May, 2010 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned for 2nd of June, 2010 when the following order was passed:- “Present: Sh. Chuneshwar Thakur, Ld. Counsel for the applicants. Sh. Anuj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Now to come up for filing of rejoinder and consideration. Put up on 12.08.2010. Till then, order dated 13.10.2009 is extended.” It is the petitioner’s own case that the Court below was appraised of the order dated 17.03.2010 passed by this Court only on 2nd of June, 2010. It is so stated in the petition filed before this Court. No separate application bringing on record the said fact was ever moved by the petitioner. It is only when the talks of compromise failed that the petitioner informed the Court about the orders passed by this Court. Impugned orders passed by the Court are of interim nature. Petitioner had reported to this Court that the project was scheduled to be commissioned on 1st June, 2010. Though now it is orally argued that the project in question is to be commissioned on 15th July, 2010 but however, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this fact. My attention has also been invited to the interim orders passed by this Court in CMP No.199 of 2010 and 178 of 2010, copies of which are taken on record. The same cannot be relied upon as nothing has been placed on record to even prima facie show that the facts of the instant case are similar, if not identical to the facts of these cases. Under these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons no ground for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is made out. The Court below itself has fixed the matter for consideration of the interim application moved by the plaintiff/respondent on 12th August, 2010. Keeping in view the urgency as explained by the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to file an application for preponing the said date. On any date fixed for hearing, the Court below shall pass appropriate orders by taking into account the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Sub Divisional Officer & Anr. versus Dhian Singh & Anr., 2010(1) Him.L.R. 121 and Lachhmi Devi versus H.P.S.E.B., 2009(2) Latest H.L.J. 784 and also the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. For the aforesaid reasons the petition stands disposed of. Copy Dasti. 25th June, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (Raj) Judge.