P. K. Bahri ( 1 ) THIS civil revision is directed against order dated February 4,1981, of the Sub-Judge by which the ex-parte stay was declined and against the order dated July 15, 1981, of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, in which it was held that the appeal was not maintainable as no order had been passed by the learned Sub-Judge under Order XXXIX Rule I or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) UNFORTUNATELY in this case the Trial Court record had been summoned and the proceedings have protracted unnecessarily and in these last 12 years if the record had not been called unnecessarily in this Court, the suit would have been decided on merits. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner had instituted the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity of the petitioner for non-payment of a sum ofrs. l3,033/60p, the supplementary bill raised by respondent No. 2-Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking claiming it to be equipment rent which was short charged for some earlier period. The injunction application has yet to be decided by the learned Sub-Judge on merits. ( 4 ) FROM the perusal of the record, I find that the written statement had been filed by the respondents taking the plea that the plaintiff-petitioner was liable to pay equipment rent and by mistake the bills were being issued to the plaintiff-petitioner at the rental rate of Rs. l60/30p whereas the rent payable was at the rate of Rs. 334/94p. There are no documents as yet produced on the record of the lower court to show as to on what basis the equipment rent is to be calculated. Even in the written statement it is not made clear as to on what basis the monthly equipment rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 334/94p. ( 5 ) NO one has appeared for the respondents to argue the matter. It is true that the learned. Sub-Judge had not declined the stay on merits and had only refused to grant ex-parte stay as the plaintiff-petitioner had approached the Court on the last day by which the payment was to be made and as no order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 or Rule 2 had been passed by the learned Sub-Judge, obviously no appeal was maintainable before the Additional Senior Sub-Judge challenging the said order. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, this civil revision is directed against the order of the Sub- Judge and is within time. Prime fade, it appears that the plaintiff-petitioner has a arguable case inasmuch as he had been paying the equipment rent as mentioned in the bills earlier and suddenly a supplementary bill had been issued claiming that earlier the equipment rent had been charged short and without indicating how the rent has been calculated. All these questions require consideration by the Trial Court and till the Trial Court decides the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code on merits, it would be in the interests of justice that the interim order granted by this Court restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity on the basis of non-payment of the said disputed bill is continued till the decision of the application by the learned Sub-Judge on merits. Civil Revision is, thus, allowed to that extent and the impugned order of the learned Sub-Judge is set aside. ( 7 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court for further proceedings on November 26,1993. Office to see that the record reaches back the Trial Court before that date. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this civil revision.