Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of all the respondents and filed vakalatnama, the same is taken on record. 2. Since a trivial question is involved, the revision is being decided finally, with the consent of parties' counsel, at the admission stage. 3. Heard Mr. Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for revisionist as well as Mr. Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 4. The instant civil revision has been filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 07.11.2013 passed in Regular Suit No. 24 of 2011 (Mohan Kumar Kanodia Vs. Raj Kishore Kanodia & Others) whereby the application (C-17) moved under Section 151 CPC for grant of permission to take fresh electricity connection has been rejected by the learned Court below on the ground that no such prayer was made at the time of filing of the suit. 5. The brief facts of the case, in narrow compass, are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the revisionist being plaintiff against his brothers and sister-in-law for declaration of will-deed dated 25.5.2007 as null and void and grant of permanent injunction. 6. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the father of the revisionist, namely, late Murlidhar Kannaujia had executed the alleged will in favour of the respondents depriving the revisionist-plaintiff of his legitimate share in the property in question. The authenticity of the will was disputed and, as such, a suit for declaring the said will-deed as null and void was filed before the learned Court below. The respondents have put in appearance and the matter is pending consideration before the Court concerned. 7. It is submitted that during pendency of the suit electricity connection which was in the name of his late father was disconnected and the respondents had applied for fresh connection. The revisionist-plaintiff had raised objection against the grant of new electricity connection to the respondents and had also requested for the grant of new electricity connection in the name of revisionist-plaintiff for the portion of the property in question in which he is residing with his family. Since the fresh connection was denied to the revisionist, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 151 CPC for the grant of permission to get new electricity connection in his own name. The learned Court below has wrongly rejected the said application. 8. Mr. Since the fresh connection was denied to the revisionist, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 151 CPC for the grant of permission to get new electricity connection in his own name. The learned Court below has wrongly rejected the said application. 8. Mr. Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the plaintiff is enjoying the electricity in his portion as the electricity connection is in the name of Smt. Sarswati Devi mother of the revisionist-plaintiff and respondent nos. 1 & 2. The revisionist-plaintiff wants the electricity connection in his own name which is not permissible as he has no right to claim possession or title over the property in question. 9. It is also submitted that after filing of the aforesaid suit the respondents have filed counter claim seeking possession over the portion occupied by the revisionist-plaintiff. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 11. It appears that the matter with respect to grant of fresh electricity connection is a subsequent event after filing of the suit, as such, the ground on which the learned Court below has rejected the application (C-17) is not sustainable. 12. Since it is a subsequent event and relates to the grant of basis amenity, as such, the learned Court below can very well issue suitable order or direction for ensuring the availability of basic amenity such as electricity, water, etc. to the occupants of the property in question. The learned Court below in order to verify as to whether the electricity is available in the portion occupied by the revisionist-plaintiff or not may issue an Advocate Commission. 13. It is not necessary that the learned Court below may grant permission for issuance of fresh electricity connection in the name of revisionist-plaintiff. The learned Court below shall only ensure that the electricity is available to the plaintiff so long as he resides in the alleged portion of the property in question. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision stands disposed of. 15. The learned Court below shall also make all possible efforts to decide the suit itself, expeditiously. ________________