Judgment Prasenjit Mandal, J. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No.152 of 2001 arising out of the Title Suit No.215 of 2000 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fifth Court, Howrah, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge has directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the petitioners as a condition for restoration of supply of electricity to the premises of the opposite party and to make current payment of charges as per bills presented/sent by the petitioners to the opposite party. The fact necessary for the purpose of present revisional application in short is that the opposite party is a consumer of electricity under the petitioners and it made pilferage of electricity from the main line through the underground. The petitioners, upon holding an enquiry claimed a sum of Rs.12,17,773.75 paise from the opposite party. Then the opposite party filed the Title Suit No.215 of 2000. By the order no.15 dated 29.05.2001 the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fifth Court, Howrah directed the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- only and the current charges for consumption of electric energy. Against such orders the petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Appeal which was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order. The learned Additional District Judge directed the opposite party to pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- only and also to pay the current charges for the consumption of electric energy. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners have preferred the revisional application against such orders. During pendency of the revisional application Justice Bhattacharyya by His Lordship’s order dated 03.12.2001 permitted the petitioners to proceed with the Clause 29 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity and the opposite party was permitted to participate in the said proceedings without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the suit. Accordingly, the C.E.S.C authority conducted an enquiry under Clause 29 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity and submitted its report dated 27.12.2001 whereby they claimed the total money of Rs.12,36,096.63 paise for pilferage of electric energy by the opposite party. Accordingly, the C.E.S.C authority conducted an enquiry under Clause 29 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity and submitted its report dated 27.12.2001 whereby they claimed the total money of Rs.12,36,096.63 paise for pilferage of electric energy by the opposite party. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on going through the record, I find that by the order sheet dated 27.12.2001 the C.E.S.C. authority conducted an enquiry over the pilferage of electricity by the opposite party under Clause 29 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity. The adjudication proceedings started in presence of both the parties and upon consideration of the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides the authority came to a finding that the opposite party was liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,36,096.63 paise for pilferage of electric energy and that after adjustment of the deposit of Rs.1,30,000/- the consumer / opposite party was liable to pay the sum of Rs.11,06,096.63 paise. Such an adjudication was made in presence of both the parties and there is a provision for appeal but no appeal has been preferred by the consumer / opposite party. Therefore, the adjudication has reached to its finality and it is binding upon the parties. This being the position, the petitioners are at liberty to realise the balance amount of Rs.11,06,096.63 paise from the opposite party. In view of the above fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained at present and it should be set aside with liberty to the C.E.S.C authority to take appropriate steps for realisation of the sum of Rs.11,06,096.63 paise against the consumer / opposite party. The revisional application succeeds. It is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 08.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No.152 of 2001 is set aside. The Title Suit has now become infructuous in view of the order dated 27.12.2001. Nothing remains for decision in the Title Suit No.215 of 2000. So, the Title Suit shall stand dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.