The defendant appellant Rajasthan State Electricity Board ( for short RSEB) was restrained by the trial court from disconnecting the electricity connection of the plaintiff respondent Bharatpur Cold Storage (for short Cold Storage Co. ) vide its order dated 9th April, 1993, passed on an application submitted by Cold Storage Co. under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CFC. (2) Against the said order, present action for filing appeal has been resorted to . (3) The materid facts lie in a short compass. Cold storage Company is a consumer of RSEB, having a connected load of 200 H.P. There was a dispute about issuance of electricity bills,as such suit for accounts as well as for permanent in- junction was filed by the Cold Storage Company against the RSEB in the Court of District Judge Bharatpur along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC. The said suit and application were transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 2 Bharatpur. In the application it was stated by the Cold Storage Company that it was entitled to the benefit available to a sea- sonal company but the RSEB issued the bills entering wrong consumption of electricity units by the company and when prayer was made by the company for setting the accounts, the RSEB threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the Cold Storage Company, the RSEB submitted reply to the said application stating therein that Cold Storage Company is not a seasonal factory, hence, during the than the minimum charges, the consumer it under obligation to pay the minimum charges. So far as the grievance which has been raised by the consumer with regard to defect in the meter, he can take recourse to the provisions of Section 20(6) of the Electricity Act. A sum of Rs. 4,69,181/- was due against the company, the electricit connection of the company was already disconnected on 5.12.1991 The trial Court all owed the application of the Cold Storage Company and while maintaining status quo restrtained the RSEB by issuing temporary injunction from disconnecting electrricity connection of the company. (4) It is true that the discretionary order passed by the trial Court should not be lightly interfered with.But when the order is perverse or is contrary to the provi- sions of law, interference becomes inevitable for the ends of justice. (4) It is true that the discretionary order passed by the trial Court should not be lightly interfered with.But when the order is perverse or is contrary to the provi- sions of law, interference becomes inevitable for the ends of justice. In the impugned order of the trial court following infirmities can be observed: (1) In the reply of the RSEB it was stated that on 5.12.1991, the electricity connection of the Cold Storage Company was disconnected and in spport of this contention affidavit of Shri R.M. Sharma was filed.The Company did not counter this statement. This important aspect was not at all considered by the trial Court in the impugned order.When the electricity connection was already disconnected on 5.12.1991 then how could an order restraining RSEB from disconnecting electricity connection be passed on 9.4.1993? It appears that reply filed by the RSEB was not properly appreciated by the trial Judge. (ii) The only prayer in the temporary injunction application was, with regard to disconnection of electricity connection and when electricity connection was disconnected, the application became infructuous. (iii) When alternative remedy under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act,1910 was available to the Cold Storage Company, no injunction could have been granted in view of the provisions contained in section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. (5) The Ratio of Rajendra Singh vs. R.S.E.P. (1) is not applicable in the instant case. In Rajendra Singhs case (supra) the learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to supply capacitor and stated at the Bar that the petitioner will give undertaking to make the payments of the disputed bills as per the decision of the pending suites in the trial court. In that case the provisions contained in Section 41(h)of the Specific Relief Act were not brought to the notice of this court. (6) It is not necessary to examine the other case law cited before me as I am of the considered view as already stated by me that the trial Judge has issued temporary injunction on an application which became infructuous after disconnection of the electricity connection on 5.12.1991. If for a while, the provisions of section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act are excluded, then also the trial Judge could pass interim mandatory injunction restoring the electricity connection of the company. If for a while, the provisions of section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act are excluded, then also the trial Judge could pass interim mandatory injunction restoring the electricity connection of the company. But the order restraining the RSEB from disconnecting electricity connection of the company and maintaining status quo could not have been passed. Without expressing merits and demerits of the civil suit, I hold that the impugned order of the trial court is perverse. (7) Consequently, I allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 9.4.1993 passed by the trial court. No costs. _