S. N. Sapra, J. ( 1 ) -THE present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Impugned order dated August 31, 1991, whereby, the learned trial Court, refused to grant ex-parte stay, to restrain respondents, from digging any pit or fixing any electric poles or putting any electric wire, through the land of petitioners. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS case Is that they are the owners in possession of various lands, comprised in Mutvil No. 80/16 Min 17, Min 18, Min Mutvil No. 80, Khasra No. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 27 Min (2 and half acres) and in 12 bighas 1 biswas in Mutvil No. 80 khasra no. 22 Mutvil 94 Khasra No. 1/2, 2/1, 2/2 and 33 bighas in Mutvil No. , 93 Khasra No. 14, 15, 6/2, 13, 14 Mutvil 94 Khasra 1/1, Mutvil 80 Khasra No. 21/1, Mutvil 81 Khasra No. 16/3, 25, Mutvil 53 Khasra No. 19, 20, 21/2, 22, 23, 24 12/2 Mutvil 72 Khasra No. 1/2, 2, 3, 4 and 7 situated in village Kishan Garh, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Petitioners I to 4 are members of one family and the land, is being used for farm houses and agricultural purposes. Petitioners I to 3 have got sanctioned the plans, from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for constructing the farm houses. ( 3 ) IT Is alleged that on February 28, 1991, some employees of respondent no. 2, bad come to the site and started digging pits, in the land of petitioners. On enquiry, it was revealed that they were the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, respondent no. 2 herein, and were digging pits, for fixing electric poles and laying overhead high tension wires. On great persuation, officials of respondent no. 2 left the site. In these circumstances, and aggrieved by the threats of respondents, to dig pits, for the purpose of fixing poles and laying overhead high tension wires, petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, to restrain respondents, from doing the aforesaid acts. On great persuation, officials of respondent no. 2 left the site. In these circumstances, and aggrieved by the threats of respondents, to dig pits, for the purpose of fixing poles and laying overhead high tension wires, petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, to restrain respondents, from doing the aforesaid acts. It is further alleged that in the written statement, respondents have stated that they had Issued one public notice, in the Hindustan Times dated July 7, 1989, thereby, informing the public in general, in respect of construction of 220 KV double circuit transmission lines from NTPC s 400 KV sub-station at Ballabhgarh, to the existing 220 KV sub-station at Mehrauli and, thereby, inviting objections from the public. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, according to petitioners, on August 29, 1991, officials of respondent no. 2, came to the land of petitioners and tried to dig pits there. The attempt, made by the officials, was thwarted by petitioners, on the inerference of neighbours. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances, petitioners moved another application dated August 30, 1991, in the trial Court, thereby, pray ing for ex-parte ad interim injunction. However, the trial Court, declined to grant ex-parte stay to petitioners. ( 6 ) VARIOUS contentions, both on law and facts, have been urged before me, by learned Counsel for parties. It is not necessary to deal with these contentions, for the reasons, that at this stage, it is not possible to make observation or decide the issues, involved in the case. ( 7 ) MR. Harish Malhotra, learned Counsel for petitioners, contended that the trial Court, while refusing to grant ex-parte stay, did not take into consideration the Judgment of this Court In Shri Surat Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1989 Delhi, 51, and the provisions, as contained in Indian Electricity Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 8 ) MR. Malhotra argued that admittedly, petitioners did not give consent to respondents, to dig pits, for fixing the poles and for laying the overhead high tension electric wires. In other words, there was obstruction, offered by petitioners, to the officials of respondents, in digging the pits and doing other acts. In these circumstances, respondents cannot be allowed to do the aforesaid acts, without the permission of the District Magistrate. In other words, there was obstruction, offered by petitioners, to the officials of respondents, in digging the pits and doing other acts. In these circumstances, respondents cannot be allowed to do the aforesaid acts, without the permission of the District Magistrate. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, relying upon the Judgment of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum and Others, AIR 1972 Kerala 47, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned Counsel for respondents, contended, that it was not necessary to serve any individual prior notice to the owner of the property, in which, the electric supply line is proposed, before exercising power under Section 10 of the Act. ( 10 ) IT is an admitted fact that petitioners have not given consent to respondents, to dig pits, for fixing the electric poles and for laying overhead high tension electric wires, in their land. It is also not disputed that petitioners have offered resistance to the officials of respondents, from digging the pits, for fixing the poles. ( 11 ) IN Shri Surat Singh (supra), D. P. Wadhwa, J. held ; "the question as to whether before laying overhead electric lines or fixing the poles notice should have been given to the owner or person in possession of the land by the DESU authority is not before me. Here is a case where in spite of the resistance by the plaintiff the defendant went on fixing poles for the purpose of laying overhead electric lines over the land of the plaintiff. His protest went unheeded. Rather, he was sent to police lock up on a complaint filed by P. C. Gupta-defendant,thongh he says he did so on the authorities of his superior officers. The act of fixing poles and laying overhead electric lines in view of the resistance offered by the plaintiff and without there being any permission of the District Magistrate was obviously unauthorised. I would not say if the defendant committed either civil or criminal trespass on the land of plaintiff but they certainly exceeded their powers when they purportedly acted under Sees. 10and 16 of the Telegraph Act. I would not say if the defendant committed either civil or criminal trespass on the land of plaintiff but they certainly exceeded their powers when they purportedly acted under Sees. 10and 16 of the Telegraph Act. " ( 12 ) THUS, in view of the Judgment, and incase of resistance, offered by petitioners, it may be possible that the permission to respondents, from the District Magistrate, becomes necessary, for fixing the electric poles and laying the overhead electric wires. Reliance was also placed upon the Judgment in Mfs. Scindia Potteries Private Ltd. and Another v. M/s. Purolator India Ltd. and Others, AIR 1980 Delhi 157. ( 13 ) IT is made clear that I am not making any observation on the point. ( 14 ) AS, the Judgments were not considered by the trial Court, therefore, I am disposing of this petition, with directions to the trial Court, to decide the 700 applications, filed by petitioners, for temporary injunction, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, very expeditiously, but, within one month, as the matter is very urgent, and while deciding the applications, the trial Court shall take into consideration the judgments, as mentioned above, and any other judgment, which may be cited, during the course of arguments. However, till the disposal of the petitioners applications, for temporary stay, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the land comprised in Mutvil No. 80/16 Min 17, Min 18, Min Mutvil No. 80, Khasra No. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 27 Min (2 and half acres) and in 12 bighas 1 biswas in Mutvil No. 80 Khasra no. 22 Mutvil 94 Khasra No. 1/2, 2/1, 2/2 and 33 bighas in Mutvil No. , 93 Khasra No. 14, 15, 6/2, 13, 14 Mutvil 94 Khasra I/i, Mutvil 80 Khasra No. 21/1. Mutvil 81 Khasra No. 16/3, 25, Mutvil 43 Khasra No. 19,20,21/2,22, 23, 24 12/2 Mutvil 72 Khasra No. 1/2, 2, 3, 4 and 7 situated in village Kishan Garh, Mehrauli, New Delhi. ( 15 ) I may further observe that if, respondents are so advised, they are at liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Delhi, for getting the necessary permission in this regard. ( 15 ) I may further observe that if, respondents are so advised, they are at liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Delhi, for getting the necessary permission in this regard. If the District Magistrate is approached byrespondents, then, in that event, the District Magistrate will be at liberty to consider the request of respondents and decide the matter, after hearing both the parties, irrespective of the order of status quo of this Court. ( 16 ) PARTIES are directed to appear before the trial Court on October, 11, 1991. --- *** --- .