JUDGMENT : 1. This petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner - original plaintiff with a substantive prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dhrangadhra in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2016, whereby, the learned first appellate Judge was pleased to dismiss the said appeal and confirmed the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Patdi below application Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2015. 2. Though served, none has put in appearance for the respondent - electricity company. Accordingly, the Court proceeded with the matter. 3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Mehul Mehta for the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent herein had carried out raid in the premises of the petitioner on 03.10.2013 and after checking, lodged false case of electricity theft and also issued a bill of Rs.7,869/53 as also, disconnected the electric connection of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2015 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Patdi in which, the petitioner had preferred an application Exh. 5 praying for to restore the electric connection of the petitioner pending the said suit. Such an application came to be rejected vide order dated 25.04.2016 and hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2016 before the learned first appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.09.2019, being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition. 3.1 At the outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the bill amount of Rs.7,870/- before the learned Civil Court concerned on 16.12.2021, and to substantiate the said proposition, he has also produced on record a copy of receipt issued by the learned Civil Court concerned. 4. As said earlier, this petition is filed against an order rejecting to restore the electric connection and dismissing the interim application. Further, the petitioner has already deposited the stake amount. 4. As said earlier, this petition is filed against an order rejecting to restore the electric connection and dismissing the interim application. Further, the petitioner has already deposited the stake amount. Accordingly, in the circumstances, without delving deep into the merits and demerits of the case on hand, more particularly, when the respondent, though served, has chosen not to appear before this Court despite sufficient opportunity being given, the Court deems it fit to allow the present petition and restore the electric connection in question of the petitioner pending the civil suit in question. 5. The writ petition, therefore succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dhrangadhra in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2016, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Patdi below application Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2015, is hereby set aside. The respondent herein - original defendant is directed to restore the electric connection of the petitioner forthwith on receipt of writ of this judgment and order, subject to the outcome of the aforesaid civil suit. 5.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent - defendant to withdraw the bill amount as deposited by the petitioner subject to the outcome of the civil suit pending before the learned trial Court concerned. 5.2 Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 5.3 It goes without saying that the learned trial Judge shall deal with and decide the suit in question without being influenced by this order, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 5.4 Direct service is permitted. [A. C. Joshi, J.] Further Order: After this judgment and order is passed, learned advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave appeared on behalf of the respondent - electricity company and requested that he may be permitted to answer the petition. The said request was declined in view of the fact that earlier sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent, besides the fact that, the petitioner has deposited the bill amount and that, the suit is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court concerned.