1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3733/2007 Hanuman Versus Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited & Others Date of Order :: 12th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioner Mr. Indresh Sharma for the respondents no. 1 to 3 Mr. Pradeep Kalwania) with ) Mr. M.D. Jhajharia ) for the respondent no.4 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Indresh Sharma, advocate appears for respondents no.1 to 3 and Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, advocate appears for respondent no.4. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff respondent no. 4 Ganga Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction in the trial court. The case was fixed on 2nd March, 2007. The defendants sought time to file reply to the application for temporary injunction. The learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for interim injunction order. The trial court heard the arguments and 2 while granting time to file reply to the application for temporary injunction, refused to pass interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff Ganga Ram preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who vide its order dated 18th April, 2007 partly allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law and without being influenced with its own observations mentioned in the order dated 2nd March, 2007. The first appellate court also directed that in the meantime the defendants will not shift the electricity connection of Khasra No. 1417. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the first appellate court, the defendant no.4 Hanuman has preferred this writ petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first appellate court has committed an illegality in passing an interim order for not shifting the electricity connection from khasra no. 1417, whereas it had already been shifted. The learned counsel for 3 the plaintiff-respondent no.4 contended that the electricity connection has not been shifted from the khasra no. 1417 and the same is still there in existence. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. The application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is still pending. The defendants no. 1 to 3 have already filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction in the trial court. The plaintiff as well as defendant no.4, both, are disputing a fact regarding shifting of the electricity connection from land bearing khasra no. 1417. In these circumstances, I think fit and proper to modify the order passed by the first appellate court and direct all the parties to maintain the status-quo in respect of electricity connection in khasra no. 1417 during the pendency of application for temporary injunction in the trial court. The trial court is also directed to decide the application for temporary injunction as soon as possible but not later than two months from today. 6. So far as cost of this writ petition 4 is concerned, the same is made easy. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above. 8. A copy of this order may be sent to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chomu, District Jaipur for compliance of this order. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK