JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Petitioner in this Civil Revision has assailed the order of the appellate Court issuing mandatory injunction for restoration of electric connection to the shop room occupied by the plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 are the tenants in respect of one room of a house belonging to opp. party Nos. 3 to 5 It is not disputed for the purpose of this Civil Revision that opp. party Nos. 3 to 5 have gifted the entire house including the shop room to the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession of the same. While the plaintiffs-opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 were continuing as monthly tenants in respect of one room which they were using as shop room petitioner was occupying the rest of the building. There being disputes between the petitioner on one side and oppsite party Nos. 1 and 2 on the other. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration of their tenancy right, petitioner filed an application before the House Rent Controller, Cuttack, for eviction of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 under the provisions of the House Rent Control Act, which are applicable to this case. 3. During pendency of the suit ad interim prohibitory order of injunction was issued by the trial Court against the petitioner not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner, it is alleged, in connivance with the officials of the State Electricity Board got the electric meter transferred in its name and thereafter filed an application for disconnection of the service connection to the shop room occupied by plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. T. S. No. 85 of 1985 and Misc. Case No. 58/85 against the Orissa State Electricity Board are pending for re-connection of the electric line as is revealed from the petition dated 30-4-1985. 1 and 2. T. S. No. 85 of 1985 and Misc. Case No. 58/85 against the Orissa State Electricity Board are pending for re-connection of the electric line as is revealed from the petition dated 30-4-1985. During pendency of the same, an application was filed for directing the petitioner "to write to the authority O.S.E.B., to restore the electric connection within twenty-four hours from the date of order and intimate the Court that as a matter of fact electricity has been restored to the suit premises and further legal action be taken against defendant No. 4 for violating the Court's order of injunction dated 29-8-1984 along with contempt proceeding for wilful flagrant violation of the Court's order in a contemptuous manner." This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 71 of 1985. The trial Court considering the application and objection of the petitioner dismissed the same. In appeal, however, the mandatory injunction has been issued against the petitioner which reads as follows : "In the result, the Misc. Appeal is allowed on contest and the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the opposite party No. 4 shall apply to the proper authorities of the Electricity Board for restoration of the electric connection at his own cost within two days hence and the authorities of the Electricity Board shall restore the connection within three days after the application by opposite Party No. 4. The respondent No. 4 shaft pay compensatory cost of Rs. 300/-to the appellant as the action of respondent No. 4 is clearly an act of mischief." 4. Direction to the State Electricity Board in the present litigation is beyond the scope of the dispute since the Board is not a party to the litigation and has not been heard in the matter. On the allegation of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the petition, the Board has disconnected the supply line through at the instance of the petitioner as alleged. A suit is pending against the Board as disclosed. Whether the Board would be directed to connect the line cannot be decided in this litigation. 5. Whether an ad interim injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, would be granted, would depend on the following three conditions. (i) Prima facie case : (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Irreparable injury. A suit is pending against the Board as disclosed. Whether the Board would be directed to connect the line cannot be decided in this litigation. 5. Whether an ad interim injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, would be granted, would depend on the following three conditions. (i) Prima facie case : (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Irreparable injury. In the absence of any fact on which a suit would be barred, the condition of prima facie case can be said to be satisfied. In this case, the necessity of supply of electricity being paramount consideration, it is to be examined whether balance of convenience lies in favour of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 for giving the direction to the petitioner as prayed for or as directed. 6. Mrs. Padhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Orissa State Electricity city Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1981 (For short ('Regulations') the relevant portions of which are extracted below : "4, Application for supply : (a) An application for a supply or an additional supply of power shall be made in the prescribed form, copies of which may be obtained from the local offices of the Board free of cost. (b) The application shall be signed by the owner of the lawful occupier of the premises for which supply is required. Any assistance or information required in filling up the application form may be obtained by the applicant at the local office of the engineer. XX XX XX (d) An intending consumer, who is not the owner of the premises occupied by him, shall, if so required by the Board, furnish proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond indemnifying the Board, against any classes arising out of disputes relating to supply of power to the premises. XX XX XX 7. On the admitted case that the State Electricity Board has disconnected the supply of electricity, a fresh application is to be filed for service connection of electricity as is clear from the impugned order. Either the owner of the building or the lawful occupier of the premises for which supply is required can sign the application. XX XX XX 7. On the admitted case that the State Electricity Board has disconnected the supply of electricity, a fresh application is to be filed for service connection of electricity as is clear from the impugned order. Either the owner of the building or the lawful occupier of the premises for which supply is required can sign the application. Under Clause (d) of Rule 4, the Board can supply the electricity on the application of a lawful occupier provided it is satisfied of the lawful occupation of the applicant and on such satisfaction the lawful applicant is to execute an indemnity bond indemnifying the Board against any claim arising out of disputes relating to supply of power to the premises. 8. It is clearly stated by Mrs. Padhi, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. S. Naidu, on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 that for the purpose of connection of electricity, they do not dispute the plaintiffs-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to be lawful occupiers and they would not have any claim against the State Electricity Board for supplying electricity on the application by any of the two plaintiffs or both. With this concession the plaintiffs have no difficulty in getting the connection themselves. Mrs. Padhi has also clearly conceded that on being requested by the plaintiffs or any of them, petitioner shall sign the application to the Board giving the consent for such supply. The balance of convenience lies in the plaintiffs-opposite party Nos 1 and 2 making the application than giving direction to the petitioner to make the application. 9. There would be no irreparable injury to the plaintiffs in case the petitioner is not directed to apply for the connection of electricity to the shop room only, as the plaintiffs can get the connection themselves as discussed earlier. 10. I am not taking into consideration the highhanded action attributed to the petitioner leaving it to be agitated in the appropriate forum. Compensatory costs have been imposed on account of mischief of the petitioner. Since I am vacating the order, the question of compensatory costs does not arise. 11. I may make it clear that by my vacating the appellate order. I am not protecting the petitioner from the highanded action attributed to it. Compensatory costs have been imposed on account of mischief of the petitioner. Since I am vacating the order, the question of compensatory costs does not arise. 11. I may make it clear that by my vacating the appellate order. I am not protecting the petitioner from the highanded action attributed to it. I may make it further clear that the petitioner would attract the liability under the law for the alleged breach of the prohibitory order and prosecution under the provisions of the House Rent Control Act in case the ingredients thereof are satisfied. l am not going into the question since the question of liability can more effectively be dealt with in those proceedings. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed. I make no order as to costs in this Civil Revision. Final Result : Allowed