JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, by placing reliance on the annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.4, along with the annexure to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, that although previously the respondent no.4 had obtained an ex parte injunction order allegedly protecting his possession in respect of the disputed property, a subsequent order of injunction was passed by another civil court, where, upon hearing both sides, the court came to the conclusion that the present petitioner is in possession of a portion for the property, which entitles the plaintiff/petitioner to the use of electricity.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent controverts the allegation as regards the petitioner being in possession and submits that the prior order of injunction was subsisting in favour of the respondent no.4, observing that the said respondent was in possession of the property, when the second injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, allegedly suppressing the same, the present petitioner obtained the order of injunction from the other civil court.

3. It is further apprehended