JUDGMENT V. Ratnam, J. 1. The plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant is a manufacturer of twisted art silk yarn and for this purpose, he has installed two twisting machines, each operated by one H.P. electric motor. In 1955, the respondent gave two service connections to the appellant, viz., Service connection Nos. 106/4-A and 50/1-A. On 25.9.1974, the respondent placed a test meter near the distribution main line and this, according to the appellant, has lowered him in the estimation of the villagers, as the fixation of a test meter, is only for the purpose of detecting theft of electric energy. The appellant claimed that the respondent is not entitled to fix the test meter and in spite of protracted correspondences, the respondent did not remove the test meter and it was thereafter, the appellant instituted the suit praying for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the test meter fixed by it near the distribution main connecting the service connections of the appellant. 2. In the written statement, the respondent resisted the suit contending that some tampering with the service connections of the appellant was suspected and it was only thereafter that the test meter was fixed as per the instructions of the superior officers and in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Electricity Board Manual. The respondent claimed that it is empowered to place a test meter with a view to detect tampering with the meters installed for service connections and consuming electric energy illegally. The respondent further stated that it was not done with a view to lower the prestige of the appellant as claimed. The respondent also contended that the appellant had no cause of action for instituting the suit. 3. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the appellant, Exs. A-1 to A-14 were filed and the son of the appellant and another were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2, while, on behalf of the; respondents, Exs. B-1 to B-6 were marked and D. Ws. 1 and 2 gave evidence. 3. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the appellant, Exs. A-1 to A-14 were filed and the son of the appellant and another were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2, while, on behalf of the; respondents, Exs. B-1 to B-6 were marked and D. Ws. 1 and 2 gave evidence. Oh a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the respondent was not entitled to fix a test meter, as it had not made out a case of theft or illegal consumption of electric energy by the appellant and granted a decree as prayed for. However, on appeal by the respondent before the Sub Court. Namakkal in A.S. 15 of 1979, the appellate Court found that the appellant had not established the infringement of any civil right by the installation of the test meter, which the respondent had a right to install and that the there, was no proof of the prestige of the appellant having been lowered in the eyes of others by the installation of a test meter. On those conclusions, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Challenging that, the appellant has now come before this Court in this second appeal. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the respondent is entitled to install a test meter in the manner done either under the provision Of the Indian Electricity Act or otherwise? 5. There is no dispute that a test meter, in fact, had been installed by the respondent near the distributing main line for the supply of energy to the service connections, which stand in the name of the appellant. While, according to the appellant, the respondent is not entitled to do so, the respondent maintains that the installation of a test meter, in the manner done would be well within its powers. Under Section 26(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) the quantity of energy supplied to a consumer and consumed by him shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and the licencee, if required by the consumer, shall cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter. Under Section 26(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) the quantity of energy supplied to a consumer and consumed by him shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and the licencee, if required by the consumer, shall cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter. Under Section 26(7) of the Act, the licencee, in addition to the meter installed in the premises of the consumer pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Act, may place upon the premises of the consumer a meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus for the purpose of ascertaining or regulating either the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the number of hours during which the supply is given or the rate per unit of time at which energy is supplied to the consumer, or any other quantity or time connected with the supply. The first proviso to Section 26(7) of the Act is as follows: Provided that, the meter, indicator, or apparatus shall not, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be placed otherwise than between the distributing mains of the licencee and any meter referred to in sub-Section (1). The second proviso and the Explanation to Section 126(7) of the Act are not necessary for purposes of the present case and therefore, they need not be considered. A plain reading of Section 26(7) of the Act clearly establishes that it is well within the power of the licencee to place upon the premises of the consumer an additional meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus, at any place of its choice. It is seen from the fact Proviso to Section 26(7) that such meter, indicator or apparatus shall not be placed otherwise than between the distributing mains of the licencee and the meter referred to in Section 26(1) of the Act, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. A conjoint reading of Section 26(7) of the Act, with the first proviso clearly shows that while the licencee has the power to place a meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus, upon the premises of the consumer, the location of such meter, maximum demand indicator, or other apparatus should be only between the distributing meter mains of the licencee and the meter referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 26. If the meter, indicator or apparatus, pursuant to the power under Section 26(7) is to be installed in any other place, it could not be done in the absence of an agreement. On the facts of this case, it is clearly seen that the installation of a test meter by the respondent was within the powers of the Board under Section 26(7) read with the first proviso, referred to earlier. There is absolutely not acceptable or reliable evidence to establish that the installation of the test meter was done by the respondent only with a view to humiliate the appellant or otherwise bring down his reputation. As stated earlier, the respondent undoubtedly has powers to install a test meter in the manner done as per Section 26(7) of the Act read with the first proviso. No exception could therefore be taken by the appellant for the installation of a test meter, in the manner done by the respondent. Consequently, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.