Judgment : The second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.30 of 1986 dated 9. 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Attur in O.S.No.1 of 1983 dated 12. 1986. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The respondents Electricity Board issued notice to the plaintiffs to pay certain amount which they calculated on the ground that the electricity in respect of service connection 420 for agricultural purposes has been misused and the water pumped from the well had been taken to the Sago Factory nearby which is not permitted under the Electricity Supply Act and therefore the plaintiffs have to pay the penalty calculated by the Board. The suit was instituted questioning the above penalty on the ground that no notice has been issued by the Electricity Board Officials before making the inspection. The Electricity Board in the written statement contended that inspection has been made as per the procedure. The maintainability of the suit as framed has also been questioned by the Electricity Board. .3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned District Munsif, Attur, formulated the necessary issues. On the evidence adduced by the parties both oral and documentary, the learned District Munsif, reached to the conclusion that the suit as framed is maintainable and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Electricity Board preferred A.S.No.30 of 1986 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The first appellate Judge, on an reappraisal of the evidence, reached to the conclusion that the trial court has committed a grave error in rejection the evidence adduced on behalf of the Electricity Board. In particular, the first appellate Judge found that the Electricity Board has proved that through underground pipes water has been taken to the sago Factory from the well intended for agricultural purposes. The objection raised by the plaintiffs in the first Appellate court regarding res judicata has also been held to be untenable. Ultimately. the learned first appellate Judge by his judgment dated 9. 1987 allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit, against which the present second appeal has been preferred. 4. The objection raised by the plaintiffs in the first Appellate court regarding res judicata has also been held to be untenable. Ultimately. the learned first appellate Judge by his judgment dated 9. 1987 allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit, against which the present second appeal has been preferred. 4. Thesubstantial question that was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants is that notice in writing ought to have been issued by the Electricity Board Officials before conducting an inspection regarding the illegal abstraction of the energy and using the water intended for agricultural purposes for the Sago Factory. 5. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s.Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd., Bangalore v. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and another M/s.Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd., Bangalore v. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and another M/s.Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd., Bangalore v. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and another A.I.R. 1991 Karn. 267. In the said judgment at the end of paragraph 9 the learned Judge has observed that, “in the absence of notice to the consumer or its representative, no credibility can be given to the inspection conducted by the Electricity Board Officials of the Electricity Board to proceed with the inspection if the consumer or his representative does not turn up to witness the inspection. .6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Electricity Board invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. D.K.Kanniappa Mudaliar Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. D.K.Kanniappa Mudaliar Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. D.K.Kanniappa Mudaliar 1984 L.W. (Crl.) 239. Dealing with the aspect of notice the learned Judge has made in the following observation in paragraph 6: .“On a careful consideration of the abovesaid section, I find that it does not contemplate any statutory notice to be issued prior to the inspection and in contemplates only mere information to the consumer at the time of inspection and there is no mandatory prescribed form of notice in writing, Further, the above section is only a rule of evidence and no statutory obligation casts on the licensee, viz., the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to issue notice to the consumer prior to the inspection.” .7. I am in agreement with the observation made by the learned Judge of this Court. At this juncture, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that no information was also given during the two inspections made by the Electricity Board Officials. It is stated that aggrieved by the inspection made for the first time without giving notice and information, the plaintiffs sent a petition to the Electricity Board Officials expressing the said grievance and on that the second inspection was made and even during the time of the second inspection no information was given to the plaintiffs. The evidence adduced on the side of the respondents do not show that any specific information has been given by the Electricity Board Officials during the second inspection. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents Electricity Board that an independent witness, viz., the Revenue Inspector had been present at the time of the second inspection and the second inspection was made on the very same date on which the objection from the plaintiffs was received. The fact that the second inspection was made in the presence of the Revenue Inspector is spoken to in the oral evidence and there is nothing to disbelieve the same. In the above circumstances, I find that the inspection made during the second time is proper, which cannot be held as illegal or against the rules. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents Electricity Board contended that before approaching the civil court for the remedy of declaration and permanent injunction, the plaintiffs ought to have exhausted the remedy provided under the terms and conditions of the contract. Clause (9) of the Schedule to Terms and conditions of supply of Electricity by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board provides for initial assessment notice, which reads as follows: “Initial assessment notice: (i) Initial assessment notice in the case of malpractices other than supply of electricity to a disconnected premises shall be sent by the officer authorised in this behalf by the Board requiring the consumer to pay pending enquiry in the matter at least 50 per cent of the assessed amount, failing which connection would be disconnected”. It has been submitted that the grievance regarding non-furnishing of information about the inspection should have been agitated by the plaintiffs by filing the appeal provided under that clause by depositing 50% of the assessed amount and only after exhausting such remedy, the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit in the civil court and in the absence of which the suit is not maintainable. 9. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar J.T. (1997)5 S.C. 182. In paragraph 10 of the judgment the Supreme Court has held as follows: “The question then arises: Whether the civil court would be justified in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed fore It is true, as contended by Shri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the the objection were raised in the written statements as to the maintainability of the suit but the same given up. Sec.9 of C.P.C. provides that civil court shall try all suits of civil nature subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognisance is expressed or by necessary implication is barred. Such suit would not be maintainable. It is true that ordinarily the civil court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed question of civil nature, where the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars, adumbrated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed, By necessary implications, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence the civil court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the declaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above”. I am bound by the observation made by the Supreme Court of India. 10. I am bound by the observation made by the Supreme Court of India. 10. In the present case the plaintiffs have not filed any appeal before the Electricity Board or deposited 50% of the amount assessed and therefore I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit is not maintainable and the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit without exhausting the appeal provided under clause 9 of the Terms and Conditions mentioned above. I am also of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the matter and the conclusion reached by the first Appellate Court is correct and there is no good ground to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.