Full Judgment
1 W.P.NO.11929/11 (I).12.10.2012.
Ku.C.V.
Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of listing the case IA No.8920/12, petitioner's application for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of.
Heard on the question of admission.
Petitioner / plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 29.6.2011 (Ann.
P.10) whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent/ defendant to supply the electricity in his premises, in alternate the prayer to issue appropriate direction to the MPSEB to provide him new connection is made.
In the couRs.of the argument in view of nature of the impugned suit whereby the petitioner has filed the same only for recovery of sum and not for other purpose, on asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of amended provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the State of M.P.how this interlocutory application could have been entertained and considered by the trial Court when no final prayer for perpetual or mandatory injunction has been made in the suit by the petitioner, on which after perusing the aforesaid amended provision of CPC instead to argue further, she seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate application in some other pending litigation i.e.eviction suit or to file separate suit in this regard.
Considering aforesaid prayer, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.C.C.
as per rules.
(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k