JUDGMENT : PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th December, 2017 whereby W.P. 29462(W) of 2017 has been dismissed. 2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to give electricity connection for domestic purpose to the appellants’ premises. 3. The plea raised in the writ petition was that a part of the premises in question was purchased by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 from one Gour Mohan Bera and a part thereof was inherited by petitioner nos. 2 and 3 from Netai Bera by the way of succession. The petitioners had separately applied for electricity connection in their dwelling houses by depositing the earnest money but the same was not acceded to. 4. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are the owner of the premises in question and that they are in need of the electricity connection. Therefore, a direction in this regard is required to be issued and that the order of a status quo passed by the Trial Court does not come in the way of obtaining essential services. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, WBSEDCL has submitted that the appellants have not produced way leave permission and there is resistance by the private respondents. Therefore, the electricity connection could not be granted. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Title Suit No. 155 of 2006 arising out of Title Suit No. 249 of 2002 in respect of Plot No. 166/708 and other plots at the instance of the private respondent nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 is pending against the appellant no. 1 and other persons and in that suit, parties have been directed to maintain status quo as to nature, character and possession till disposal of the suit. 7. Another Title Suit 151 of 2006 arising out of Title Suit No. 263 of 2002 filed by one Balai Pramanik is pending in which the appellants had filed an application for addition of parties. Para 6 of the writ petition further reveals that the appellant nos. 7. Another Title Suit 151 of 2006 arising out of Title Suit No. 263 of 2002 filed by one Balai Pramanik is pending in which the appellants had filed an application for addition of parties. Para 6 of the writ petition further reveals that the appellant nos. 1 and 2 have filed application in Title Suit No. 151 of 2006 with a prayer for allowing them to take electric connection to their dwelling house which has been objected by the private respondents and which is still pending. The appellants have also not produced requisite way leave permission. 8. The appellants cannot be permitted to avail parallel remedy. That apart, the order of a status quo exist and the appellants have already filed application before the Trial court in the pending suit seeking permission for electricity connection. Therefore, in all fairness, they should prosecute their pending application in the Title Suit. We make it clear that any observation made by the learned Single Judge or by this Court in this order will not come in the way of the appellants in prosecution the pending application before the Trial Court in the Title Suit. They have also not submitted requisite way leave permission. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. 10. Hence we find no reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly we dismiss the present appeal and connected application.