Judgment :- 1. There is absolutely no merit in this second appeal. The trial Court has, after finding that the appellant herein failed to establish when exactly the defect in the meter occurred, curiously observed that in the absence of any evidence as to the date when the defect occurred, revision of the charges for three^nonths as disclosed in Ex. A. 7 appeared to be just and proper. The appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment oftne trial Court in so far as it was against the plaintiff and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in entirety as prayed for by him. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that under R. 226 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual the Board is entitled to make revision in the bills for previous three months from the date of test or defect unless there is strong evidence for a different period. R. 226 cannot be invoked in the present case as the procedure prescribed by Rules 222 to 225 has not been followed in this case. As found by the appellate Court, no notice was issued admittedly under R. 223 giving seven days time to the consumer for removal of the meter for testing purposes. As the procedure has not been followed, R. 226 will not apply and the contention of the appellants Counsel has to fail. 3. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Ex. B. 5 proves that the defect in the meter was detected on 18.9.1975 and the appellant is entitled to levy penalty charges for a period of three months prior to that date. There is no rule to the effect that the appellant is entitled to revise the charges for a period of three months prior to the date of detection of the defect even assuming that the detection was on 18.9.1975. 4. There is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the appellant as found by both the Courts below. There is no question of law, much less a substantial one. The second appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.