Judgment : M. DURAISWAMY, J. The above second appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 22 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Panruti confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 641 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Panruti. 2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 641 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Panruti for the following reliefs. (a) declaring the order passed in letter No.EE/0&M/PRT/IEI/F.Doc/AN29/92 dated 18. 92 is baseless; arbitrary; unlawful and against the principles of natural justice and ultra vires and as void ab initio; .(b) to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents acting on their behalf from disconnecting the service connection of S.C.123 of Maligampattu SSV standing in the name of the plaintiff; .(c) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and .(d) to pass such further or other decree… 3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows: .(i) According to the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant gave a notice to the plaintiff on 37. 1992 stating that the plaintiff has committed theft of electrical energy. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff is directly tapping power from low tension lines and utilizing energy for running submersible motor for pumping water. .(ii) According to the plaintiff, he is an agriculturist and there is no need for committing any theft of energy since he is getting power free of any charge. The plaintiff sent a reply notice dated 18. 1992 to the defendants. The defendant lodged a criminal complaint with Kadambuliyur Police Station and complaint was registered as Crime No. 614 of 1992. The 2nd defendant issued a letter dated 18. 1992 to the plaintiff levying extra levy to the tune of Rs. 1,96,049/- (iii) According to the plaintiff, the said levy is baseless, arbitrary, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. In the said order, it was stated that the amount should be paid on or before 19. 1992 failing which the service connection would be disconnected. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. The brief case of the defendants are as follows: (i) According to the defendants, on 27. In the said order, it was stated that the amount should be paid on or before 19. 1992 failing which the service connection would be disconnected. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. The brief case of the defendants are as follows: (i) According to the defendants, on 27. 1992, the plaintiff’s service connection was inspected by the 3rd defendant along with the 4th defendant and during the course of inspection they found that electrical energy was tapped from the main conductor. At the time of inspection, motor inside 150 feet depth well was functioning. The capacity was tested and found as 15 horse power. Taking direct connection to the motor was in addition to the regular service connection given to the plaintiff. Therefore direct tapping of energy and using unauthorized load of 15 hp amounted to theft of energy. .(ii) Immediately a complaint was given to the Kadambuliyur Police Station and the case of theft of energy was registered in Crime No. 614 of 1992. A show cause notice was issued on 27. 1992 to the plaintiff since the explanation offered by the plaintiff was not satisfactory, the 1 st defendant issued assessment notice dated 28. 1992 assessing Rs. 1,96,049/- as compensation and demanded the said amount from the plaintiff. Without paying the amount demanded and without preferring an appeal as provided for, the plaintiff filed the suit. (iii) The plaintiff also filed another suit in O.S. No. 620 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore for permanent injunction. Therefore, for the very same cause of action, the plaintiff filed two suits one before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and Another before District Munsif Court, Panruti. (iv) As per the terms and conditions of supply, for the offence of theft of energy, the board is entitled to claim compensation. If the compensation amount is not paid, the Electricity Board is entitled to disconnect the service connection. The suit is not maintainable since the appeal remedy is available to the plaintiff. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Before the trial Court, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 11 documents Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the defendant did not let in oral and documentary evidences. 6. The suit is not maintainable since the appeal remedy is available to the plaintiff. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Before the trial Court, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 11 documents Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the defendant did not let in oral and documentary evidences. 6. The trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of the plaintiff found that Exhibit A-1 assessment order is not legally valid and decreed the suit as prayed for. 7. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred appeal in A.S. No.22 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Panruti. The lower appellate Court after taking into consideration the materials-available on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the defendants have filed the above second appeal. 8. Heard, Mr. N. Muthusamy, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. T.S. Baskaran, learned counsel for respondent. 9. At the time of admission of the above second appeal, the following Substantial questions of law arose for consideration. “1. “Whether the Courts below are correct in not considering the questions of law that the plaintiff has approached the civil Court without exhausting the appeal remedy available before the appellate authority as per Exhibit A-1?” 2. Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit in view of the ruling by the Honourable Supreme Court Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Ashwani Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 120 ?” 10. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable in view of the specific bar under the Tamilnadu Electricity Act. Though this plea was raised even in the written statement of the defendants, the Courts below did not frame any issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit and give a finding with regard to the same. 11. Countering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent submitted the suit is maintainable since the principles of natural justice has not been followed in the case of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel for respondent also submitted that the notice dated 28. 11. Countering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent submitted the suit is maintainable since the principles of natural justice has not been followed in the case of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel for respondent also submitted that the notice dated 28. 1992 was issued under the old act and that new act came into force only in the year 2003 and when there is no specific provision in the old act barring the Civil Court jurisdiction, the suit is maintainable. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment in Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Ashwani Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 120 : (1998) 1 MLJ 1 , which reads as follows at p. 2 of MLJ: “8. …. 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.” 13. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied on a unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in a Writ Appeal M.D. No. 378 of 2005, Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thiruchendurv. S.J. Gayas and Another (2008) 2 MLJ 812 . In the above judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows at p. 823 of MLJ: “25……..Since the commission of offence, its detection and the commencement of the necessary proceedings all took place before the coming into force of 2003 Act, the consumers cannot claim any benefits during the interregnum period of 2003 Act and the 2007 Act..”.. 14. The learned counsel for respondent relied on a judgment Tamuilnadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity System, Coimbatore 641 012 and Others v. R. Raja. (2007) 5 MLJ 1297 : 2007 (4) CTC 225 . In the above judgment, this Court held that the suit is maintainable that the electricity board has responsibility to prove that inspection was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and the Board not established by production of inspection report nor any document to show that consumer was in formed about the report. In the above judgment, this Court held that the suit is maintainable that the electricity board has responsibility to prove that inspection was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and the Board not established by production of inspection report nor any document to show that consumer was in formed about the report. In the above judgment, it could be seen that the plea of maintainability of the suit was not raised in the written statement. Therefore, the Judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 15. The learned counsel for respondent also relied on a judgment in S.V. Subramaniam v. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, rep. by its Director, Mr. Viswanath and Others (2008) 2 MLJ 169 . In the above judgment which arises the suit filed in the original side of this Court to declare the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is null and void. The facts and circumstances of the case differs with the case on hand. The Judgment is not applicable to the present case. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the following judgments in (i) Sardara Singh (dead) by Legal heirs and Another v. Sardara Singh (dead) and Others (1990) 4 SCC 90 . In the above judgment, the facts and the circumstances of the case differs from the case on hand. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the present case. 17. The counsel for respondent also relied on the following judgments (i) Secretary K.S.E.B. Trivandrum v. M. Sainaba and Others AIR 1990 Kerala 50, (ii) In Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura and Others, AIR 1999 SC 294 : (1999) 1 SCC 472 : (1999) 1 MLJ 138, the facts and circumstances of the cases differ from the case on hand. Therefore, the judgments are not applicable to the present case. .18. In Superintending Engineer, Periyar Electricity Distribution Circle, Erode and 2 Others v. Pavathal (deceased) and 3 Others (2002) 1 MLJ 515 : (2002) CTC 544. In the above judgment, this Court held that when the terms and conditions of supply of electricity provides for appeal against the decision of authority to disconnect electricity, the consumer cannot approach Civil Court without exhausting such alternative remedies provided under Electricity Act and the terms and conditions of supply. .19. In the above judgment, this Court held that when the terms and conditions of supply of electricity provides for appeal against the decision of authority to disconnect electricity, the consumer cannot approach Civil Court without exhausting such alternative remedies provided under Electricity Act and the terms and conditions of supply. .19. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Ashwani Kumar (supra), Superintending>> Engineer, Periyar Electricity Distribution Circle, Erode and 2 Others v. Pavathal (deceased) and 3 Others (supra) and in the unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thiruchendur v. S.J. Gayas (supra), the Civil Suit is barred under the Electricity Act, when the appeal remedy is available to the respondent/plaintiff, the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. 20. The Courts below also have not given any finding with regard to maintainability of the suit though it was raised in the written statement. As already held, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, substantial question of law is decided in favour of the appellants. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The second appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 21. However, the first respondent is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and raise the factual objections before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority would consider and dispose of the appeal on merits.