1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 57/2010 NAMDEORAO P. HATWAR AND OTHERS VS. MANOJ N. HATWAR AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.Y.N.Thengre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.R.Patil, Advocate for Respondent NO.1 Miss. B.A.Patil, Advocate,f or Respondent No.3 Mr.A.J.Khan, Advocate, for Respondent No.4 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. Heard Advocate Thengre for petitioners/ original Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, Advocate P.R.Patil, for Respondent No.1, Advocate B.A.Patil, for Respondent No.3 and Advocate A.J.Khan for Respondent No.3. Grievance of Advocate Thengre is, the moment suit was withdrawn, the order of temporary injunction could not have survived and therefore, needed to be vacated. He argues that if order of temporary injunction could continue, suit could not have withdrawn. Advocate P.R.Patil for Respondent NO.1/original plaintiff does not dispute this position. However, he states that as water supply and electric connection are essential services, respondent no.1 is entitled to have the same even though there is no order of temporary injunction. Advocate Khan as also Advocate Patil states that the dispute is between private parties and they are abiding by the orders of the Court. 2 It is apparent that the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court and in M.C.A filed by Respondent No.1 that prayer was granted. Thereafter the said suit was withdrawn by respondent no.1/plaintiff. In the meanwhile against grant of temporary injunction by trial Court, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court had expedited the proceedings in that suit. In this situation, it is apparent that after withdrawal of R.C.S. No. 48/2008 by Respondent No.1/ plaintiff, the interim orders passed therein viz temporary injunction cannot survive. If Respondent no.1 has got any other legal right to those services, the same cannot form subject matter of grievance in this petition. Therefore, it is clarified that order of temporary injunction in favour of respondent no.1/ plaintiff has ceased to be effective. In view of this clarification, Advocate Thengre states that the grievance in the present writ petition does not survive. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.