Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 200/85 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram have preferred the present Second Appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 130/86 dated 22.10.87 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19.6.86. 2. The case in brief is as follows: — The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Admittedly, the plaintiff and his two brothers are running a Rice Mill under the name and style as Andavar Rice Mill. Previously, their father Kadar Oil Ravuthar was running the same. They have got a sanction load to use only 20 HP on 5.1.85, the squad of the Electricity Board inspected the service connection No. 31 in the rice mill and noticed the use of 35 HP, which is against the sanctioned load of 20 HP. On 11.2.85, a show cause notice was also issued by D3, calling upon them to pay further charge of Rs. 6255/-. No inspection was made as alleged by the defendants and only 20 HP was used by them and there was no violation on their part. Proper procedure has also not been adhered to by the inspecting authorities. They have been duly paying the consumption charged. Now, they have sent a notice of disconnection and hence, the suit. 3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that in respect of the rice mill in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Only 20 HP was the sanctioned power load. During the time of inspection by the squad on 5.10.85, they noticed the use of 35 HP. In fact, the plaintiff was also present at the time of inspection made by the squad and he had also signed in the document. After observing all the formalities only, the show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff, calling upon them to pay the aforesaid amount as additional charges. The suit filed by the plaintiff is also not maintainable, since it was only a show cause notice, the plaintiff has to file an appeal the remedy provided under the Act. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed for issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.I and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the defendants. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed for issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.I and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the defendants. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B5 were marked. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 130/86 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram and Ex.A6 was also marked and after hearing the parties, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present Second Appeal. 5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed: i. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is contrary to law and vitiated by errors of jurisdiction? ii. Whether the lower appellate court is right in accepting Ex.A5 with formal proof especially when the contents therein are seriously disputed by the defendants? 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The points the arise for consideration are: — i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration? ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? 8. Points: — There is no dispute that the service connection No. 31 is in Andavar Rice Mill in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his two brothers. The plaintiff filed the suit questioning the show cause notice sent on 11.2.85 calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 6,255/- by way of additional charges on the ground that the plaintiff had used 35 HP load whereas the sanctioned load was only 20 HP. No inspection was made by the defendants as alleged by them on 5.1.85 and in fact, they were using only 20 HP load and under the circumstances, the power supply is improper and illegal and the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the inspection was made by the squad in the Electricity Board on 5.1.85 in the presence of the plaintiff and noticed the use of 36 HP load violating the sanctioned load of 20 HP. Ex.B5 is the report relating to the inspection, wherein the plaintiff had also affixed his signature. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the inspection was made by the squad in the Electricity Board on 5.1.85 in the presence of the plaintiff and noticed the use of 36 HP load violating the sanctioned load of 20 HP. Ex.B5 is the report relating to the inspection, wherein the plaintiff had also affixed his signature. Moreover, only show cause notice was issued and it is open to the plaintiff to sent representation and even if aggrieved, the plaintiff has got remedy to prefer an appeal and he cannot rush to the court by the filing the suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction. Ex.B1 is the communication sent by the Department people to the plaintiff and Ex.B2 is also a report relating to the inspection. Ex.B3 is the statement given by the plaintiff and Ex.B4 is the rules relating to the Electricity Department. 10. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants contended that the lower appellate court ought to have seen that the notice impugned in the suit is only a Provisional Assessment notice and a full fledged enquiry as well as appeal are provided under the terms and conditions of supply and as such the suit is premature. The judgment of the lower appellate court is also vitiated in receiving and accepting Ex.A5 dated 6.10.87 and accepting the contents thereof at the appellate stage without formal proof especially when the contents were seriously disputed by the defendants. I am of the view that there is much force in the contention of the appellants. If is necessary to state that Ex.A5 has been marked in the lower appellate court and there is nothing is show that any application was filed by the plaintiff to receive the document as an additional evidence. Even in the judgment of the lower appellate court, there is no reference about IA Number or the reason for making Ex.A5. It is stated that the material object has been sent to the private expert for the purpose of getting the opinion and this report has been simply marked and Ex.A5 without giving any opportunity to the defendants to test the veracity of report. Prima facie, it is clear that the marking of Ex.A5 by the lower appellate court is not proper and correct and in is contrary to the settled principles of law. 11. Prima facie, it is clear that the marking of Ex.A5 by the lower appellate court is not proper and correct and in is contrary to the settled principles of law. 11. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants also contended that the present suit is not maintainable, alleging that only provisional notice was sent to them and the remedy is to prefer an appeal. In support of their contention, they relied on 1984 L.W. (Crl.) 239 (TNEB Tiruttani v. D.K. Kanniappa Mudaliar), wherein it is observed that Section 26(4) of the Electricity Act does not contemplate any statutory notice to be issued prior to the inspection and it contemplate only mere information to the consumer at the time of inspection and there is no mandatory prescribed form of notice in writing. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied on JT 1997 (5) SC 182 (Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar) relating to the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain suits. Though Section 9 of CPC provides for Civil Court hearing all suits of civil nature, where statutory circulars and instruction provide for decision on grievances, cognizance of Civil Courts has been excluded. In view of provisions of appeal or review, the aggrieved consumer ought to avail of remedy available instead of invoking Art. 226. By necessary implication suit is not maintainable. Respondent should approach the authorities within 6 weeks and he was allowed to pay the electricity charges in six monthly installments. 13. They also placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in 1999 MLJ 151 , wherein it is observed that the plaintiff, if aggrieved, should avail the remedy provided under the Electricity Act and the instructions issued by the Board without resorting to Civil Court. Only after exhausting these remedies has the plaintiff got the rights to file a suit. The suit is not maintainable under law. 14. It is therefore, clear from the aforesaid discussions and decisions that only provisional show cause notice was issued by the Department calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 6,255/-. The only course open to the plaintiff is to prefer an appeal provided under the statutory rules. It is also pertinent to point out that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. 6,255/-. The only course open to the plaintiff is to prefer an appeal provided under the statutory rules. It is also pertinent to point out that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. He had gone to the extent of stating that no inspection was made by the Electricity Board Officials on 5.1.85 and no notice was also given. The records filed on the side of the defendants clearly and clinchingly established that proper procedure has been followed by them and in fact, the plaintiff has also subscribed his signature in the documents. No valid reason has been given by the Plaintiff for not preferring an appeal provided under the statutory rules and under the circumstances, I am of the view that the suit is premature and not maintainable. It is unfortunate that the lower appellate court has misdirected itself and based upon the additional document marked, the lower appellate court decreed the suit. The entire procedure adopted by the lower appellate court is not proper and correct and as such, the finding is also perverse, liable to be interfered by this Court. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 15. For the reasons stated above, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the suit is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The plaintiff is directed to pay the amount in six equal monthly instalments and he can prefer an appeal before the competent authorities provided under the statutory rules and they are also directed to dispose of the appeal, if any preferred, with a period of three months.