ash 1 ao-663.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 663 OF 2003 Maharashtra State Electricity Board. .. Appellant Vs Sainath Ice Factory & Anr. .. Respondents ­­ Ms A.R.S. Baxi for the Appellant. Shri Rohit Sakhdeo i/by Ms Suhasini Mutalik for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ­­ CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original Defendant and the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs. On an application for temporary injunction made by the Respondents, the Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 8th April, 2003. The operative part of the order reads thus:­ “1. The application Exh.5 is allowed. 2. Till the decision of the suit the defendants are hereby temporarily restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply provided to the plaintiffs factory however, the defendants are at liberty to follow the rules and procedures of Maharashtra State Electricity Board condition and miscellaneous charges for supply of electrical energy and follow the provisions of Indian Electricity Act by giving an opportunity of hearing ash 2 ao-663.03 to the plaintiff. 3. Cost in cause.” 2. Civil Application No. 988 of 2003 was filed by the Appellant for stay of the execution of the impugned order. On 27th July, 2004, this Court granted ad­interim stay to the impugned order. However, in the said order, it was provided that in the event of the Respondents depositing a sum of Rs.1,93,000/­ in this Court within a period of four weeks from that date, ad­interim relief will not operate. Time of four weeks granted under the said order was extended by an order dated 26th August, 2004. It is not in dispute that the said amount has been deposited by the Respondents. The report of the office shows that a sum of Rs.1,93,000/­ deposited by the Respondents has been withdrawn by the Appellant. However, interest amount on Rs. 1,090/­ has been invested in a Fixed Deposit. It is not in dispute that the Respondents have preferred a statutory appeal which is still pending. In view of the deposit of the aforesaid amount and withdrawal thereof by the Appellant, at this stage, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The Appellant can decide the appeal in accordance with law. If decision on appeal is adverse to the Respondents, the Appellant can always apply under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for modification of the impugned order or for vacating the impugned order. ash 3 ao-663.03 3. Hence, I pass the following order: (a) The impugned order is confirmed. (b) The Appellant will be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,090/­ pending in this Court together with interest accrued thereon. (c) Notwithstanding the pendency of the suit, the Chief Engineer of the Appellant shall decide the pending appeal in accordance with law. (d) In the event, the decision in the appeal is adverse to the Respondents, subject to further proceedings which may be taken by the Respondents, it will be open for the Appellant to apply under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for variation or setting aside of the impugned order or for vacating the impugned order. (e) Withdrawal of the amounts by the Appellant will be subject to the final outcome of the pending suit. ash 4 ao-663.03 (f) All contentions of the parties on merits in the pending suit as well as pending appeal are kept open. (g) The Appeal is disposed of on above terms. ( A.S. OKA, J )