ORDER This is a revisional application at the instance of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. The Corporation is the defendant in Title Suit no. 536/84 now pending in the 1st Court of the ld. Munsif at Sealdah. That suit was instituted by the opposite parties for a declaration that disconnection of the supply of electric energy to the plaintiffs by the defendant without any prior notice is illegal, arbitrary and bad been made without any basis. On such declaration the plaintiffs prayed for mandatory injunction for restoration of supply disconnected on October 18, 1984. The suit was filed in November 1984. 2. Having filed the suit for obtaining the above relief, the plaintiff, filed an application for an interim order of mandatory injunction directing restoration of supply of energy even pending the suit. This application was contested by the defendant on the plea that, since on a surprise check it was found that the plaintiffs had tampered with the seals, terminal plates and pressure coil links and had been pilfering energy side tracking the meter, the disconnection was effected. In course of contest no doubt the defendant made an offer that the supply can be restored upon payment of Rs. 50,304.87 being the charges for the unauthorised consumption and also a further sum towards the enhanced security deposit and reconnection charges. This application was disposed of by the ld. Trial Judge when he directed restoration of supply only upon payment of reconnection charges. In doing so the ld. trial judge had not found even prima facie wrongful. He thought that the defendant's claim of Rs 50,30.87 was yet to be assessed and cannot be prejudged for the purpose of granting the reconnection. The defendant preferred an appeal and the ld. appellate Judge has dismissed the appeal taking merely the view that in the ends of justice the reconnection should be directed and if the defendant satisfies the trial court at the trial that there was unauthorised consumption of electricity, the plaintiffs would be asked to pay for that. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent order of injunction passed by the two courts below, the defendant has preferred the present revisional application. 3. Having heard the ld. Advocates for the parties I am of the opinion that there was a jurisdictional error on the part of the two courts below in making such an order of injunction in mandatory form. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent order of injunction passed by the two courts below, the defendant has preferred the present revisional application. 3. Having heard the ld. Advocates for the parties I am of the opinion that there was a jurisdictional error on the part of the two courts below in making such an order of injunction in mandatory form. The two courts below failed to appreciate that the defendant is not the plaintiff before the court. The defendant had come with a positive case that they had lawfully disconnected the supply since the plaintiff had been pilfering the energy and had tampered with the installation. How far they were justified in taking such a plea would be decided when the suit is tried on evidence. But even at this stage when the injunction was granted, the two courts below had never; recorded any prima facie finding that such a plea raised by the defendant is not bona fide or correct. For all practical purposes the two courts have decreed the suit even before the trial because the only substantial prayer in the suit is a decree for restoration of the supply of energy. It is now settled principle that mandatory injunction can be granted by a court in vary exceptional cases. This Court pointed out the exceptional circumstance in which such mandatory injunction can be granted in the case of India Cables Ltd. v. Sumitra Chakraborty, AIR 1985 Cal. 248 . Certainly the case before the Ld. Judges to the courts below does not come within the purview of such an exceptional case which can justify a decree prior to the trial. That is the reason why, in my opinion, the two courts below acted entirely beyond their jurisdiction in granting mandatory injunction as a result whereof the suit stands decreed even before the trial. 4. The revisional application, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders being set aside, the plaintiffs' application for injunction is dismissed. The ld. trial Judge is, however, directed to dispose of the suit positively within 6 (six) months from the date of communication of this order to him. The defendant petitioner is directed to file their written statement positively within a fortnight from date if not already filed. Let this order be communicated to the ld. trial Judge forthwith. Application allowed; impugned order set aside; direction given.