ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. Since the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court is pending, we think it appropriate not to express any opinion on the issues raised in these appeals. However, we request the High Court, Appellate Bench, to decide the appeal pending before it at the earliest but not later than 31-1-2005. In the meantime, the respondent shall deposit the amount demanded by the appellant at Annexure P-6, p. 102 found in the SLP paper-book within four weeks from today, neither of the parties shall seek any adjournment in the matter and cooperate with the High Court in getting the matter disposed of at the earliest. Pleadings, if any, be exchanged in d advance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that in view of Section 15 of the TRAI Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties nor do the arbitrators have the jurisdiction to decide the pending dispute between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had strongly opposed this contention. e Since the matter is now pending consideration before the Appellate Bench of the High Court, we think it unnecessary for us to decide this question, hence, we express no opinion in this regard. 5. We notice from the impugned order that the respondent has undertaken to file an affidavit before the High Court in regard to the correction of the CLI which we are told has not yet been done, if so, such an affidavit will be filed by the respondent within four weeks from today. 6. The direction made by us in regard to tile payment of the amount as demanded by the appellant as per Annexure P-6 is only an interim arrangement and the same is subject to the final decision. 7. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of.