Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.65 of 2012 and Cross Objection by reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal in O.S.No.469 of 2011. 2. The parties, for thesake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: a] The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree in his favour “TAMIL” (extracted as such) on the main ground that there was excess billing and that too unjustifiably without giving due opportunity of being heard and violating the principles ofaudi alteram partem. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the sum of Rs.20,000/- paid in connection with the compounding of the offence was not adjusted towards the dues payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. Hence the suit. b] Whereas the defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit by contending that the suit was barred in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act. c] Whereupon issues were framed by the trial court. d] Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked and the court documents Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked. e] Ultimately, the trial court partly decreed the suit granting the relief in respect of the first prayer in the plaint. However, the second prayer in the plaint was dismissed. As against which, the defendants preferred the appeal; whereupon the plaintiff preferred the cross appeal as against the dismissal of the part of the claim in the plaint. After hearing both sides, the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants in entirety and dismissed the plaintiff's cross appeal. f] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the lower appellate court was right in dismissing the suit as not maintainable? f] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the lower appellate court was right in dismissing the suit as not maintainable? b) Whether the lower appellate court was right in not considering the other issues while allowing the appeal? c) Whether the lower appellate court was right in not dealing with cross objections independently? [extracted as such] 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would implore and entreat that the first appellate court wrongly decided the lis placing reliance only on the decision of this court reported in 2012(1) LW 648 [Thirumangalam Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd., rep. through its Special Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai vs. The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, Madurai-7 and another] and that due opportunity was not given. Once the quasi judicial authority or the administrative authority takes any decision violating the principles of natural justice then the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure can intervene. Accordingly, the trial court intervened; but the first appellate court ignoring all those principles simply dismissed the original suit itself by allowing the appeal filed by the defendants. 6. A mere running of the eye over the decision of this court reported in 2012(1) LW 648 would amply make the point clear that the plaintiff after receipt of such alleged illegal assessment order should have preferred appeal; but the plaintiff has not chosen to do so; but straightaway filed the suit with the aforesaid prayers and that has been found fault with by the first appellate court in view of the decision of this court. Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 and the clauses 8.00, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Terms and Conditions, supply of Electricity were referred to appositely and aptly in the cited precedent, which clearly discountenances the present suit. The said decision is a binding precedent and as such, I could see no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the first appellate court in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissing the cross objection filed by the plaintiff. 7. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. The said decision is a binding precedent and as such, I could see no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the first appellate court in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissing the cross objection filed by the plaintiff. 7. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.