Judgment :- Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below, the respondents have preferred the present Second Appeal. 2. The averments contained in the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is a partnership firm which is running a Cone Winding Mill under the name and style of Anand Traders at Vellabommanpatti, Vadamadurai Village. The plaintiff got sanction of electric power supply for the mill vide service connection No.140 under tariff IV from low tension line. The sanctioned load is 125.5 H.P plus 2400 Watts and the same is being used within the frame work of the Electricity Act and Rules. On expansion, the plaintiff firm made extension of building in the mill premises and applied for 240 H.P as additional load from high tension line. Further, the plaintiff firm had installed two 125 KVA generators to run the mill to meet the contingency. Subsequently, the plaintiff firm applied for 300 KVA high tension line and the same was also sanctioned by the second defendant by means of his communication dated 03.01.1995. 3. In pursuance of the sanction, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs,1,80,770/- (Rupees One lakh Eighty Thousand and Seven Hundred Seventy only) on 24.01.1995. But, all of a sudden, without any reasonable cause, the fourth defendant issued a communication on 02.03.1995 stating that an Anti-power Theft Squad made a surprise inspection and found unauthorised use of power to the capacity of 142-63 H.P plus 2400 watts. In fact, no surprise inspection was made as alleged by the defendants. 4. Further, it is incorrect to state that power with the above said capacity was utilised for the plaintiff’s firm. In the said notice, it is also stated that the plaintiff should remove the unauthorised load within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and required the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.17,62,103/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand and One Hundred three only) by way of damages cum costs for alleged unauthorised use by means of another notice dated 09.03.1995. Hence, the suit has been laid for declaration that the said two notices are illegal, void and unlawful and also for a consequential permanent injunction. 5. Hence, the suit has been laid for declaration that the said two notices are illegal, void and unlawful and also for a consequential permanent injunction. 5. The allegations found in the written statement of the fourth respondent, in brief, are as follows:- Two generators of 125 KVA and 180 KVA capacity were installed by the plaintiff without getting permission from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The sanction for additional load was admitted on 03.02.1995. As per Procedure and Rules, the anti-power Theft Squad of Dindigul inspected the premises of the plaintiff and found an excess load of 142 H.P. and 3,200 watts, pursuant to which, a show cause notice was issued on 02.03.1995 and assessment notice dated 09.03.1995 was also issued requiring the plaintiff to pay Rs.17,62,103/- as per the terms and conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Act and Rules. It was detected by the Special Squad that the plaintiff has connected the total load of 267.63 H.P. and 5000 watts power which is over and above the sanctioned load of 125 H.B. and 2400 watts which is an offence under the terms and conditions of supply and it is actionable. Added to that, the plaintiff has preferred the suit without exhausting the provisions of Electricity Board. The plaintiff should have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, as prescribed by the Rules. Hence, the suit should be dismissed with costs. 6. The trial Court framed necessary issues on the pleadings and evidence adduced on either side and allowed the suit in O.S.No.196 of 1996. 7. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.8 of 1999, before the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul and the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants have preferred the Second Appeal. 8. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:- “1) Whether the Courts below are correct in entertaining the suit when the statutory appeal remedy is available and without exhausting the same the suit has been filed? 2) Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit as prayed for in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling reported in 1997(5)SC 182?” 9. 2) Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit as prayed for in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling reported in 1997(5)SC 182?” 9. The appellants have pleaded that during surprise inspection made by the Anti-power Theft Squad on 03.02.1995, it was detected that there was excess load of 142 H.P. and 3,200 watts being utilised in the premises of the plaintiff against the sanctioned load of 125 H.P. and 2,400 watts. Hence, a total load of 267.63 H.B. and 5,600 watts power had been utilised by the plaintiff and hence, the show cause notice emanated from the respondents on 02.03.1995 which was followed by assessment notice dated 09.03.1995. The said notices are very much assailed by the plaintiff by stating that there was no basis for the assessment and that in fact, no inspection was carried out. It is stated by the respondents that even though one Electrical Supervisor by name Gurusamy was on duty at the time of inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad, his signature could not be obtained since he refused to sign. As far as the contention of the appellants is concerned, the respondent cannot seek relief from the Civil Court without exhausting the remedy before the appellate authority in Electricity Board as stated in the Rules. There is no debate to the effect that the terms and conditions would stipulate that if the petitioner got aggrieved by the steps taken by the Electricity Board, appeal has to be preferred before the concerned Superior Officer. When statutory appeal is not preferred before the authorities concerned, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants would garner support from a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BORAD Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR (1997 (5) S.C.C.120), wherein it is observed as follows:- “The question then arises whether the Civil Court would be justified in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as contended by Shri Goyel, learned Senior Counsel, that the objections were raised in the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the same were given up. Section 9 of the CPC provides that the Civil Court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication barred. Section 9 of the CPC provides that the Civil Court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication barred. Such suit would not be maintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed questions 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 implication, 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.” 10. As per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, the Civil Court is not at all justified in entertaining the suit questioning the validity of the assessment made by the Electricity Board, in case, the same has been initiated without availing the remedy available before the Electricity Board. It is stated in categorical terms in the above said decision that no declaration or injunction shall be granted by the Civil Court, when the appellate remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Act is not exhausted by the party aggrieved. 11. Following the said decision, this Court, on various earlier occasions refused to entertain the claims of the aggrieved persons to come before the Court, who had not exhausted the remedy to prefer appeal before the competent authority. Identical views have been taken by this Court in the judgments rendered in Second Appeal Nos.1333 of 1986, 1154 of 1998 and 1290 of 1995 under similar facts and circumstances. 12. Considering the uniform judicial opinion arrived at by this Court following the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be held that the plaintiff has to be non-suited for the relief claimed in the suit. 12. Considering the uniform judicial opinion arrived at by this Court following the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be held that the plaintiff has to be non-suited for the relief claimed in the suit. To put it in a nutshell, before initiation of legal proceedings before the Court, the respondent should have preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul / Chief Engineer Electricity Distribution, Trichy, as mentioned in the impugned notice, dated 09.03.1995. The time allowed for preferring the appeal was 60 days in the said notice. However, since the respondent has initiated legal proceedings before the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a considerable time to prefer appeal before the competent authority. 13. In these circumstances, the plaintiff may prefer an appeal against the impugned notice before the competent authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the afore-said direction, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.