THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C.(SR).NO.449 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Complaining the disobedience of the orders of this court dated 5.2.2010 in CRP.MP.No.501/2010 in CRP.No.347 of 2010, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. 3. Petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.5519/2006 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is H.No.3-6-420/1/1, 1st floor, street not.3, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 4. The 1st defendant in the suit is the father of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is her sister and the 3rd defendant is the tenant in the premises bearing no.3-6-420/1, street not.3, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 5. In the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1095 and 1096 of 2006 in O.S.No.5519/2006 seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property and for a direction not to disrupt the amenities in the petition schedule property. By common order and decree dated 24.11.2008 the trial court granted interim injunction pending the disposal of the suit. Subsequently the suit was transferred to the court of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 6. As already noted above, the 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.5519/2006, is the father of the petitioner/plaintiff. He filed another suit in O.S.No.170/2007 in respect of the very same suit schedule property in O.S.No.551/2006, on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of his daughter and son-in-law. In the said suit in O.S.No.170/2007, he filed I.A.No.1513/2007 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from changing the nature of the property. By order and decree dated 28.6.2007, the court below made the status quo order granted earlier, absolute. 7. Since the suit schedule properties in both the suits in O.S.No.5519/2006 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the suit in O.S.No.170/2007 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is one and the same and the parties are also common, by virtue of the order dated 30.7.2009 passed on Tr.O.P.No.1218/2009 by the court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the suit in O.S.No.5519/2006 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is transferred to the court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for being tried along with O.S.No.170/2007. After transfer the suit in O.S.No.5519/2006 is renumbered as O.S.No.558/2009. 8. Prior to the transfer orders passed in Tr.O.P.No.1218/2009 dated 30.7.2009, the plaintiff in O.S.No.5519/2006 filed two applications in I.A.No.205/2009 in O.S.No.5519/2006 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for restoration of the electricity supply to the schedule premises and I.A.No.423/2008 in O.S.No.5519/2006, under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. to summon advocate-commissioner for cross-examination. The court below by orders dated 15.4.2009 and 24.11.2008 dismissed the respective I.As. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed two revisions before this court in C.R.P.Nos.347 and 244 of 2010. 9. This court by order dated 5.2.2010 in CRP.MP.NO.501/2010 in CRP.No.347/2010, directed the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner premises in I.A.No.205/2009 in O.S.No.5519/2006 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending the revision. 10. Eventually, this court by common order dated 13.3.2011 disposed of both the revisions in C.R.Nos.347 and 244 of 2010. The said common order is as under: “C.R.P.No.347 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 15-04-2009 in I.A.No.205 of 2009 in O.S.No.5519 of 2006, on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the electricity supply to the schedule premises was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.NO.244 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 24-11-2008 in I.A.No.423 of 2008 in O.S.No.5519 of 2006, on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) read with Section 151 CPC to summon for advocate- commissioner for cross-examination, was dismissed. 3. Heard both the sides, Perused the record. 4. The petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents for permanent injunction. The respondent filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, the trial was commenced. It is stated that recording of evidence has been completed and the matter is at the stage of hearing the arguments. When that is so, it is considered imprudent to go into the merits of the case at this stage and it would be just and proper to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date with liberty to the parties to raise all their respective contentions before the trial Court. 5. In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.” 11. Now complaining that the interim orders of this court dated 5.2.2010 in CRP.MP.NO.501/2010 in CRP.No.347/2010 in directing the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner premises in I.A.No.205/2009 in O.S.No.5519/2006 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending the revision, have been violated, the present contempt petition is filed. 12. Along with the contempt case, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petitions. Contempt Application No.275/2011 in CC (Sr).No.449/2011 is filed for interim direction for power supply to the petition schedule premises. C.A.No.402/2011 in C.C.(Sr).No.449/2011 was filed to grant leave to implead Assistant Divisional Engineer/Assistant Engineer, ERO-V, APCPDCL, Hydereguda, Hyderabad as 4th respondent in the contempt case. C.A. (Sr).No.2122/2011 in C.A.No.275/2011 in C.C.(Sr).No.449/2011 is filed to direct the proposed 4th respondent to restore power supply or in the alternate to provide new service connection in the name of the petitioner. C.A.No.214/2011 in CC(Sr).No.449/2011 is filed to grant leave to implead the husband of petitioner, as 2nd petitioner in the contempt case. CC(Sr).No.916/2011 in CC(Sr).No.449/2011 is filed to implead the husband of the petitioner, as 2nd petitioner in the contempt case. CA(Sr).No.1131/2011 is filed to stay all the further proceedings in the suits in O.S.No.170/2001 and 558/2009 (Old number O.S.No.5519/2006) pending the disposal of the contempt case. 13. This court passed the following interim order dated 23.3.2011 in C.A.No.275/2011: “Heard the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person. None appears for the respondents. The petitioner states that in spite of the order dated 05.02.2010 in CRP.MP.No.501 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.347 of 2010 granting interim direction to the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioners’ premises, the respondents have not restored the power supply and thereby violated the orders of this Court and hence the contempt case had to be filed. The contempt case is not yet numbered. Application No.214 of 2011 is filed seeking leave to implead the second petitioner, who is husband of the first petitioner. Notice was ordered to the respondents to the leave application on 16-03- 2011 with a direction to post after four weeks. The petitioner would submit that the petitioners’ daughter is appearing for X class examination commencing from 24-03-2011 and that on account of non-restoration of the power supply, the child is put to any amount of hardship and suffering while preparing for the examination. Hence, the respondents are directed to restore power supply to the petitioner’s premises immediately as already directed by the order referred to supra and report compliance. Post after three weeks.” 14. Except C.A.No.275/2011, the other miscellaneous petitions have not been ordered. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, C.A.No.402/2011 in C.C.(Sr).No.449/2011 filed to grant leave to implead Assistant Divisional Engineer/Assistant Engineer, ERO-V, APCPDCL, Hyderguda, Hyderabad as 4th respondent in the contempt case and C.A.No.214/2011 in CC(Sr).No.449/2011 filed to grant leave to implead the husband of petitioner, as 2nd petitioner in the contempt case and CC(Sr).No.916/2011 in CC(Sr).No.449/2011 filed to implead the husband of the petitioner, as 2nd petitioner in the contempt case, are ordered. All other miscellaneous applications are dismissed. 15. The case of the petitioners in the contempt case, and as represented by the 2nd petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person is that though this court granted interim direction to restore the power supply to the petition schedule premises, the 1st respondent has not complied with the order by restoring the power supply. They are having school going children and since 2008 they are longing in darkness and are being harassed by the 1st respondent and in view of non-restoration of power supply, they are put to untold hardship. 16. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the contempt case and the Counsel Sri N.Subba Reddy vehemently contended that there is no deliberate violation of the interim orders of this court. He stated that immediately after the interim direction of this court, the 1st respondent filed vacate petition and as per the judgment of the Apex Court reported in STATE OF J AND K v. MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN[1], the vacate petition has to be disposed of first, before entertaining the contempt case and hence the contempt case cannot be proceeded with. In the present case, the revision itself was disposed of directing the court below to dispose of the suit, as the suit is ripe for disposal. Therefore, there is no contempt on the part of the 1st respondent. Further he stated that the petitioner failed to pay the electricity consumption charges and, therefore, the 1st respondent was forced to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- and thereafter as the petitioners did not pay the consumption charges, the 1st respondent made representation and based on the same, the electricity authorities disconnected the power supply and subsequently removed the meters. 17. The Additional Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Hyderguda, Hyderabad, who is impleaded as 4th respondent is the contempt case filed counter affidavit stating that the 1st respondent made a representation that he is the owner of the building and that in respect of the service connection no. 003736, he has given representation dated 27.10.2008 seeking disconnection of supply and as the registered owner has given letter for dismantling the connection, the department has no other go except to disconnect, as per condition no.5.2.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. It is further state that unless the applicant produces proof to show that he is in lawful occupation of the premises, the power supply to the premises cannot be released. 18. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel Sri N.Subba Reddy submitted that if the petitioners are prepared to pay the electricity consumption charges paid by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent amounting to Rs.11,000/- and odd, the 1st respondent has no objection for obtaining new connection by the petitioners. 19. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that for the purpose of fresh connection, as per the statutory rules, the applicant has to pay the deposit and the necessary charges, and also shall submit ‘no objection’ letter from the owner of the property. 20. In response to the above submission, the petitioners stated that as they are suffering without electricity, they are prepared to pay the consumption charges paid by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent and also pay all the necessary charges to the 4th respondent as per the rules for providing new connection to their premises. 21. In view of the above submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and recording the above understanding arrived at between the parties to the effect that petitioner is prepared to pay the 1st respondent the electricity consumption charges paid by him to a tune of Rs.11,000/- and odd and also would pay the necessary deposit and the charges to the 4th respondent and further the 1st respondent has no objection for obtaining the new connection by the petitioner; the contempt case is closed. No costs. 22. Any observation made during the course of the order, will not influence the dispute pending before the civil court between the parties. AVS --------------------------------- 25—07—2011 [1] (1992)4 SCC 167