JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under section 115, C.P.C., has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.8.1995 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hanumangarh whereby Misc. Civil Appeal filed against the order dated 6.10.1994 in Civil Misc. Case No. 40/93 dismissing application under 0. 39 Rr. I and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C., was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners who are residents of bhani Chak 5 K.H.R. Tehsil, Tibi, initially filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-respondents in the Court of the then Munsif, Hanumangarh which subsequently stood transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Tibi, District Hanumangarh. On application under 0. 39 Rr. I and 2, C.P.C. r/w Section 151, CPC along with the suit was filed in the trial Court pleading that the plaintiffs were residing in the Dhani situated in Chak 5 K.H.R. and he had a large family and a large number of cattle-wealth and they had temporarily contracted with the Divisional Irrigation Officer for supply of canal- water for the drinking purposes and, accordingly, a 3" diameter pipe-line was laid connecting water supply from the Chandrawali Distributory from its right side out let in the year 1985-86. According to R. 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for short `the Rules of 1958) and, subsequently, the respondent No. 2 extended the period of supply lastly upto 20.2.1987 and, in the meantime, the petitioners as well as others totalling 36 persons placed in the same position, approached the respondent No. 3 to forward their applications for providing this facility of supply of water on a permanent and regular basis and the respondent No. 3 forwarded their applications to the Chief Engineer who, on 18.6.1988 recommended their cases to the State Government for favourable action. 3. However, the Government of Rajasthan on 30.6.1988, informed that the applicants including the present petitioners, may be supplied potable water, as above, upto 30.9.1988 or till the disposal of the applications of the petitioner and their co-applicants, whichever was earlier. However, the plaintiff-petitioners claimed that the Government of Rajasthan did not convey any further order for extension or acceptance or rejection of the applications of the petitioners etc. However, the plaintiff-petitioners claimed that the Government of Rajasthan did not convey any further order for extension or acceptance or rejection of the applications of the petitioners etc. and, consequently, the defendant- respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 1.11.1989 ordered for discontinuance of supply of potable water to the petitioners and, hence, on filing of the suit and the application for issuance of temporary injunction against the defendant-respondents, the trial Court vide its order dated 6.10.1994 dismissed the application and, on filing of appeal there against, as above, vide impugned judgment, the learned appellate judge also dismissed the appeal upholding the order of dismissal passed by the learned trial judge and hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the respondents, inspite of due service long back, have not put in their appearance to contest this petition and also perused and considered the impugned orders passed by the lower Courts besides the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, admittedly, the petitioners were sanctioned water connection, as above in the year 1985-86 and since then they were receiving regular supply of water on payment of prescribed charges therefor. The defendant- respondents extended this facility from time to time and, lastly, when approached, the defendant-respondent No. 3 favourably forwarded the case of the petitioners as well to the Chief Engineer so as to be forwarded to the State Government and it was all favourably done and, lastly, the State of Rajasthan conveyed its sanction for continuance of this facility upto 30.9.1988 or till final disposal of the applications of the petitioners and other applicants placed in the same position. Besides, it has also been contended and as also not rebutted by the respondents, the petitioners deposited full charges in the Government account for sanctioning and providing regular supply of potable water' since the petitioner had no alternative supply. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent No. I did not take any action on the applications favourably forwarded by the respondents Nos. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent No. I did not take any action on the applications favourably forwarded by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 through the office of the Chief Engineer concerned and, therefore, when the respondent No. 1 State is sitting over their applications for a pretty long time and the same have not been disposed of communicating grounds of rejection, if any or with their acceptance, the respondents cannot be allowed to disconnect the water arbitrarily. Therefore, when the State Government is sitting over the applications of the petitioners and others and no final order has been passed nor the same has been communicated to the petitioners. In absence of any appropriate order on the applications of the petitioners, since discontinuance of water supply for which necessary charges are being regularly paid for to the department and expenses for permanent connection have also been deposited before hand with the respondents, the latter cannot be allowed arbitrarily to discontinue the water supply and, resultantly, there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and, as a result, water is necessary for human being as well as animals and there is no alternative source of drinking water for the plaintiff- petitioners, and in case no temporary injunction, during the pendency of the suit on merit is allowed, it is bound to result in irreparable injury, to the petitioners and, besides, comparative hardship resulting from the denial of relief of temporary injunction against the respondents shall result in greater comparative hardship to the petitioners as against the hardship likely to result to the respondents in case of acceptance of application for issuance of temporary injunction. 7. 7. On careful consideration of the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also the contents of the petition as well as the impugned orders passed by the lower Courts, since respondent No. I has not disposed of the applications of the petitioners for grant of connection and source of potable water to the petitioners pursuant to the initial contract entered into by the petitioners with the respondent No. 2 and, even after repeated extensions and, lastly, the case of the petitioners having been forwarded to the State Government for sanction of the contract for supply of canal water for the purpose of drinking, in absence of disposal of the applications of the petitioners along with good reasons in support thereof, it is just and fair that the status-quo ante as prevalent at the site be ordered to be maintained and, accordingly, since both the lower Courts overlooked this aspect of the matter and, accordingly, in case this petition stands dismissed, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the suit pending before the trial Court and, therefore, the impugned orders have been passing thereby committing material irregularity while exercising jurisdiction in dismissal of the application for temporary injunction and not allowing the same which has occasioned a failure of justice to the petitioners. 8. Resultantly, this petition is well merited and deserves to be accepted with a vie".V to maintain status-quo as prevalent at the site and, consequently, the impugned orders dated 6.10.1994 and 28.8.1995 are hereby set aside and while accepting the application, for issuance of temporary injunction moved by the petitioners, it is ordered that the respondents shall maintain status quo ante as prevalent at the site and thereby shall remain restrained from disconnecting or discontinuing the supply of water to the petitioners on the condition that.the petitioners shall be liable to pay all charges levible therefor.This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.Revision disposed of. *******