K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS have filed this application under Order 39 Rules 1and2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code inter-alia alleging that husband of plaintiff No. 2, late V. N. Sarna had entered into an agreement dated 1. 10. 1995 with defendant No. 1. Under the agreement, plaintiffs were to provide space, power and water etc. at the cost of defendant No. 1 while plaintiff No. 1 was to provide technical skill for the purpose of manufacturing the goods. In lieu of use of space etc. , defendant No. 1 was to give to plaintiff No. 1 commission equivalent to 10% of the value of the manufactured goods subject a minimum of Rs. 1,200. 00 per month. After the death of V. N. Sarna, plaintiff No. 2 and her power of Attorney holder have been denied access to the factory premises for ascertaining the quantum of the goods produced by defendant No. 1. In violation of the aforesaid agreement, defendant No. 1 inducted defendants 2 and 6 to 9 to use the factory premises without the consent of the plaintiffs. They are further carrying out illegal construction and installing generators for running the equipments at the factory premises. To harass the plaintiffs, on 2. 8. 97 on the instructions of defendant No. 2, his employees have disconnected the power supply to the plaintiffs. It is prayed that defendant be directed to restore the power connection to the plaintiffs. ( 2 ) K. C. BAJAJ (defendant), sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 has contested the application by filing reply. In the reply, amongst others, by way of preliminary objections, it is stated that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the application is beyond the scope of the suit and the application is liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. ( 3 ) I have heard the parties counsel and have been taken through the file. ( 4 ) IN para No. 34 of the plaint, following reliefs have been claimed by the plaintiffs (A) pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for possession of the area as shown in the site plan with black cross lines, factory premises bearing No. 59-Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-ll, New Delhi. (b) pass a decree for recovery for a sum of Rs. 17,03,336. (b) pass a decree for recovery for a sum of Rs. 17,03,336. 00 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants (being Rs. 15,23,336. 00 as the sum payable in the office of Commissioner of Industries and a sum of Rs. 1,80,000. 00 as damages for use and occupation of the said area calculated @ Rs. 10,000. 00 per month w. e. f. 1. 12. 1994 and calculated upto 31. 5. 1996 and continue to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 per month till the time of handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the said area in the premises bearing No. 59, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-lll, New Delhi. (c) pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, servants, representatives etc. from causing any construction in the factory premises, bearing No. 59-0khla Industrial Estate Phase-lll, New Delhi. (d) pass a decree for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing the defendants to remove the unauthorised construction caused by the defendants in the premises bearing No. 59-0khla Industrial Estate, Phase-lll, New Delhi. (e) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, servants, representatives etc from preventing the plaintiff and/or her. agents/servants from entering into the premises bearing No. 59-0khla Industrial Estate, Phase-lll, New Delhi. (f) pass such order/decree or further orders/decree which this Hon ble court may, under the facts and circumstances of the case, deem fit and proper. ( 5 ) IN K. P. M. Aoobucker Vs. K. Kunhamoo and Ors. AIR 1958 Madras 287 it was held that any interim relief granted during the pendency of the suit should not be of a greater scope than as could be granted in the suit itself after the party has established his right in the suit to that relief. It may be noted that withholding of power supply by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs is neither the subject matter in the suit nor any relief in respect thereto has been claimed in the plaint. Evidently, direction sought in the application against defendants 1 and 2 to restore power supply to the plaintiffs is beyond the scope of the suit as stated by the defendants. Therefore, without touching the merits of the case, application deserves to be dismissed on the said ground. ( 6 ) APPLICATION is, therefore, dismissed.