ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.163/2017, is challenging the order dated 6.3.2018 [the date is wrongly mentioned as 6.2.2018 in the cause title to the impugned order] on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K., by which I.A.No.5 filed by the defendants under Section 151 of CPC, is allowed. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction. Along with the suit, he had also filed an application I.A.II for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The trial Court on consideration of the application granted an ex-parte order of injunction on 15.4.2017. On obtaining the ex-parte injunction order, the plaintiff made a representation dated 20.4.2017 to the PDO of Village Panchayath requesting to withdraw the NOC given to MESCOM in favour of the defendant. In turn MESCOM withdrew the NOC granted in favour of the defendant. On withdrawal of the NOC, MESCOM disconnected the electricity connection given to the defendants’ premises on 3.5.2017. 4. The defendants filed an application (I.A.No.5) under Section 151 of CPC seeking for a direction for restoration of electricity connection to Meter No.VGEH.207737, which stands in the name of Mohammad Haneef defendant No.1. The trial Court after hearing both sides by its order dated 6.3.2018 allowed the application (I.A.5) filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC and directed MESCOM to reconnect the electricity supply to the defendants’ premises. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the caveator-respondents. Perused the writ papers. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing I.A.No.5 and directing MESCOM to reconnect the electricity supply to the house of defendant No.1. It is the further case of the petitioner – plaintiff that defendants have no right, title and interest over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and plaintiff has produced the documents to show his title and possession. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator–respondents submits that he has already built the house and electricity connection was granted on 17.1.2017. On the representation of the plaintiff the MESCOM has disconnected electricity supply. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator–respondents submits that he has already built the house and electricity connection was granted on 17.1.2017. On the representation of the plaintiff the MESCOM has disconnected electricity supply. He submits that the electricity supply could not have been disconnected at the instance of the plaintiff, when it was connected prior to obtaining injunction by the plaintiff. 8. It is not in dispute that the electricity connection was existing as on the date of granting injunction by the trial Court on 15.04.2017. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff after obtaining the order of injunction, made representation to the PDO for withdrawing the NOC. In pursuance of the NOC, the MESCOM had disconnected the electricity to the premises of defendant No.1. The injunction granted by the trial Court on 15.04.2017 was not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, which was subsequently vacated. On the basis of the said injunction the plaintiff could not have made representation to MESCOM to withdraw the NOC. The injunction granted ex-parte initially was to protect the possession of the plaintiff. On the strength of the said order the plaintiff could not have sought disconnection of electricity to the defendants premises. The plaintiff has misused the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. The trial Court has passed a reasoned order while allowing I.A.No.5 filed by the defendants. The trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed.