ORDER 1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Guna in MJC No.04/09, whereby it has been directed that the petitioner shall either refund the amount deposited by the respondent under protest pursuant to the judgment dated 5.9.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.302/05 or deposit the same before the Court for its refund to the respondent and in the event of non-compliance, proceedings for contempt of Court's order dated 5.9.2007 shall be initiated. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as under : 2.1 The respondent was the proprietor of M/s.OTG Cable Network and an agreement for installation of an electricity connection was executed by him with the petitioner in that capacity. 2.2 It appears that on account of default in non-payment of electricity dues, the electricity connection of the respondent was disconnected, which was allegedly reconnected by him on his own. Consequently, a complaint under section 135(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was filed by the petitioner before the competent Court against the respondent. 2.3 In Special Case No.302/05, in compliance of bail order dated 5.12.2005, the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.20,200/- with the petitioner under protest. 2.4 The respondent was put to trial in Special Case No.302/05 and a specific issue was framed to ascertain whether he had illegally reconnected the electricity connection after its temporary disconnection. 2.5 On due marshaling of the evidence adduced by the rival parties, the learned Court, vide judgment dated 5.9.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.302/05, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. In paragraph No.15 of the judgment dated 5.9.2007, the Court observed as follows:- ^^vkjksih }kjk tek djkbZ xbZ vaMj ÁksLVsV jkf'k og ifjoknh ls okil ysus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn Á'uxr dusD'ku esa viuk dksbZ 'ks;j ;k Hkkx Lohdkj djrk gS rks mDr jkf'k lek;ksftr dh tk,A** 2.6 After the dismissal of the complaint, the respondent approached the petitioner seeking refund of sum of Rs.20,200/- deposited by him under protest, which was not considered by the petitioner and therefore, he moved MJC No.04/09 before the Special Court, Electricity Act, Guna. 2.7 The petitioner herein filed reply in the said proceedings vide Annexure-P/8 inter alia contending that there are electricity dues amounting to Rs.1,05,314/- outstanding against the respondent, and after adjusting Rs. 2.7 The petitioner herein filed reply in the said proceedings vide Annexure-P/8 inter alia contending that there are electricity dues amounting to Rs.1,05,314/- outstanding against the respondent, and after adjusting Rs. 20,200/-, a balance of Rs.85,114/- was still recoverable; hence he not entitled to refund. The learned Court below thereafter passed the impugned order dated 2.2.2010, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of the agreement (Annexure-P/4), the respondent was bound to clear his electricity dues. On the date of disconnection and subsequent reconnection, dues were pending against the respondent which have been adjusted and after adjustment, still a sum of Rs.85,114/- was recoverable from the respondent. He therefore submits that the learned trial Court was unjustified in entertaining the MJC preferred by the respondent and thereby directing the petitioner either to refund the said amount to the respondent or to deposit the same in the Court, failing which the proceedings for contempt may be instituted against the petitioner. 4. None appears for the respondent, though served. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. The careful consideration of paragraph No.15 of the judgment dated 5.9.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.302/05 indicates that the trial Court had categorically held that the respondent was entitled to refund of the amount deposited under protest, unless he admitted any share or liability regarding the connection in question. No document has been filed either before the learned trial Court or before this Court to establish that the respondent had admitted any such share or liability after the said judgment. On the contrary, Annexure-P/8, i.e., the reply filed by the petitioner before the learned Court below indicates that the petitioner proceeded to adjust the amount unilaterally without any such admission by the respondent. 7. The directions issued by the learned trial Court in Special Sessions Case No.302/05 in paragraph No.15 of the judgment 5.9.2007 are clear and unambiguous. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said direction, it ought to have assailed the same in appropriate proceedings. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to interpret the unambiguous direction issued by the learned trial Court in the manner as is suitable to it. 8. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said direction, it ought to have assailed the same in appropriate proceedings. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to interpret the unambiguous direction issued by the learned trial Court in the manner as is suitable to it. 8. The perusal of the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the learned Court below in MJC No.04/09 also indicates that on the application filed by the respondent, earlier an order dated 28.10.2009 was passed whereby, the petitioner was directed to refund the amount to the respondent in pursuance thereto the letter dated 11.11.2009 was also issued by the Court informing the petitioner either to refund the amount to respondent or deposit the same in the Court, but instead of complying with the said order, a reply was filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2009 objecting to the directions issued on 28.10.2009, whereas the application filed by the respondent stood decided on 28.10.2009 itself. There is nothing on record that the petitioner ever challenged the earlier order dated 28.10.2009. In view whereof also, no fault could be found in the order dated 2.2.2010. 9. In view of the above considerations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly entertained the MJC No.04/09 and the impugned order dated 2.2.2010 does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , has held that in case the view taken by the trial Court is a probable view, then the same is not to be ordinarily interfered in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above discussion and consideration, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.