ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel tor the petitioners Shri K.S. Bhatnagar. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the petitioners have approached this court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of disconnection of water line of the petitioners as communicated by the respondent vide notice (Annexure P/1) and' have also sought a writ of prohibition commanding the respondent to abstain from continuing disconnection of relevant water line or deprivation of water supply to the petitioners any further or otherwise than in due process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that me petitioners were having the water line connection from Gram Panchayat since last 7 years and they have also cleared of their dues but in spite of that the water line connection was disconnected. When they approached they were informed that the water-line cannot be connected for non-availability of the water connection facility. Then the petitioners tiled a suit in the Civil Court numbered as Civil Suit No. 84-A/94 which was dismissed for default of the plaintiffs. Thereafter they moved an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for default but that application was rejected on 4.8.1995. It is after this the present writ petition is tiled before this Court. 4. Firstly, the Civil suit was dismissed for default of the petitioners and secondly they have alternative forum for redress of their grievances and the grievances of the petitioners are like that which require investigation of the matter on facts. 5. Learned counsel submitted that under Order 9, Rule 4. C.P.C. when a suit is dismissed for default, only two remedies are available one that he may apply for setting aside the order dismissing the suit for default and the condition is regarding satisfying the Court about sufficiency of the cause. Further the application has to be moved within a period of limitation provided in the Limitation Act. The other remedy available is to file a fresh suit. These two remedies are not conclusive of the other as the limitation for filing a suit is different one than the limitation for restoration of the suit. This fact by itself makes it clear that two remedies are not conclusive of the other. 6. In view of above. The other remedy available is to file a fresh suit. These two remedies are not conclusive of the other as the limitation for filing a suit is different one than the limitation for restoration of the suit. This fact by itself makes it clear that two remedies are not conclusive of the other. 6. In view of above. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure - P/1). The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the petitioners to their detriment.