Judgment :- 1. The respondent herein filed O.S. No.303 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, challenging the Telephone Bill dated 7.8.2003 issued by the appellant herein to the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,901/-. 2. The appellant herein, who was the sole defendant in the said Suit inter alia contented that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, in view of the specific provision contained in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges which reads as follows: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction ? 3. Whether it is correct to state that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit ? 3. During trial, on the side of the respondent herein, he was examined as PW-1 and on the side of the appellant herein one Mr. Gurusamy Pandi was examined as DW-1. On the side of the respondent, Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-18 were marked and on the side of the appellant an Investigation Report has been marked as Ex.B-1. Having considered the materials available on record, the Trial Court decreed the Suit. Challenging the same, the appellant herein filed A.S. No.153 of 2004, on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. The Learned Subordinate Judge, by Decree and Judgment dated 1.4.2005 dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant herein has come forward with this Second Appeal. 4. When the Second Appeal was admitted on 3.5.2005, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in upholding that without availing opportunity under Section 78 of the Indian Telegraphic Act". 5. Now, let me analyze the evidence available on record to answer the substantial question of law. 6. 4. When the Second Appeal was admitted on 3.5.2005, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in upholding that without availing opportunity under Section 78 of the Indian Telegraphic Act". 5. Now, let me analyze the evidence available on record to answer the substantial question of law. 6. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic At reads as follows: "7-B. Arbitration of disputes: (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of determination, be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section". 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the excess billing also is covered by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act, though there are no express words indicating the same. The learned counsel would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in G.M. Telecom, Trivandrum v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, AIR 2000 Ker. 250 . 8. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act is not a bar for the Civil Court to entertain the Suit. According to him, there is no provision whatsoever in the said Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the issue in respect of the excess billing. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that though a dispute was raised by making an objection to the excess billing by the respondent, the appellant did not choose to either hold an enquiry or to refer the matter to an Arbitrator. Therefore, it is not open for the appellant to raise an objection in respect of the jurisdiction by invoking Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. 11. Therefore, it is not open for the appellant to raise an objection in respect of the jurisdiction by invoking Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. 11. As held by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, as referred above, excess billing also is covered by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act, and therefore, any dispute in respect of the excess billing can be referred to an Arbitrator. But, a close reading of the said Act would go to show that an Arbitrator is to be appointed only by the Central Government generally for all disputes or in respect of a particular dispute. Admittedly, there is no Arbitrator appointed in general in respect of the disputes. In respect of this case, a request should have been made for appointment of an Arbitrator. Admittedly, as soon as the Telephone Bill was received, the respondent raised an objection regarding the correctness of the same. The appellant did not choose to make any request for appointment of an Arbitrator. As a matter of fact, an enquiry was held only after filing of the Suit and the Enquiry Report has been marked as Ex.B-1. 12. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no specific provision in the said Act either expressly or impliedly excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter of excess billing. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act is only an enabling provision for the parties to refer the matter to an Arbitrator. In a given case, if the party is not willing to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, he can very well file a Civil Suit. The Courts below have rightly considered all the issues and have held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. Thus, the only one substantial question of law raised in this case fails and the same is answered against the appellant. 13. In the result, this Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.