JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2001 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2000, on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, modifying the judgment and decree dated 03.02.1999 passed in O.S.No.571 of 1995, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthangarai. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. The short point that arises for consideration, in this second appeal, is as regards the question of maintainability of the suit laid by the plaintiffs. It is thus found that it is unnecessary to discuss about the facts of the case of the respective parties in a detailed manner. Suffice to state that the plaintiffs have laid the suit seeking the reliefs above stated complaining interalia that the impugned order issued by the second defendant directing the second plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,972/- is illegal and unenforceable and seeking the consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disconnecting the service and restraining them from collecting the above said amount from the plaintiffs. It is further seen that, as per the case of the defendants, by way of a surprise inspection, the defendants men having noted the illegal tapping of electricity by the plaintiffs and thereby the theft of electricity committed by them, it is seen that the defendants have also preferred criminal case against the plaintiffs and also the second defendant has also issued a notice dated 10.4.1995, to the first plaintiff complaining about the illegalities committed by him, he being the service connection holder, calling upon him to satisfactorily explain within seven days about the allegations contained in the notice, however, despite the reply given by the first plaintiff, with reference to the above said show cause notice, it is found that the second defendant has passed an order directing the second plaintiff to pay the impugned amount for the acts committed by the plaintiffs, as above stated, by intermeddling with the service connection and the meter concerned. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit. 5. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit. 5. The defendants have contested the case only on the footing that inasmuch as the plaintiffs have committed theft of electricity by illegal tapping etc., according to them, only after following the procedure by issuing the show cause notice, the impugned order has come to be passed and therefore inasmuch as the plaintiffs are charged with the criminal case with reference to the theft of electricity, it is their contention that the plaintiff cannot be granted the reliefs sought for. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and no documents has been marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to grant the relief of declaration and the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disconnecting the service connection of the first plaintiff. However, did not grant the relief of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff as regards the restrainment of the defendants from collecting the amount claimed in the impugned order. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the first appeal. 8. It is found that the defendants have not thrown any challenge to the judgment and decree of the trial Court by preferring any first appeal. That apart, the defendants have also not preferred any cross objections in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff as above stated, impugning the judgment and decree of the trial Court in any manner. The first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials on record, finding that the impugned order cannot be sustained in any manner, as the same being illegal and invalid and not issued in accordance with the principles of natural justice, modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and accordingly, granted the relief of permanent injunction also in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from collecting amount claimed in the impugned order, as the criminal case is still pending. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 9. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: 1. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 9. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: 1. Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit without considering the fact that the suit has been filed without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the Courts below are correct in not considering the fact that the suit has been filed without exhausting the appeal remedy available in the terms and conditions of supply which is statutory in character as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court? 3. Whether the Courts below are correct in entertaining the suit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997 (5) SCC 120 ? 10. The main contention putforth in the second appeal by the defendants is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable and if at all the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the impugned order, the only remedy available to the plaintiffs is to prefer an appeal before the appellate Forum as provided under the provisions of the Electricity Act and the rules pertaining thereto and therefore, it is their contention that the Civil action laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. In this connection, strong reliance is placed upon the decision reported in (1997) 5 SCC 120 (Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Ashwani kumar. Per contra, according to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the impugned order has been issued without following the principles of natural justice and against the canons of the well established law and as the plaintiffs have not committed any theft of electricity as alleged in the impugned order, according to them, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same cannot be questioned by the defendants and hence, the second appeal is liable to be thrown out. 11. The plaintiffs have thrown a challenge against the impugned order on various grounds and one such ground is violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the plaintiffs, in specific, the impugned order has come to be issued against the second plaintiff without providing him an opportunity to show cause as to why the impugned order should not be passed. It is found that, admittedly, the service connection of the subject matter stands only in the name of the first plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, in specific, the impugned order has come to be issued against the second plaintiff without providing him an opportunity to show cause as to why the impugned order should not be passed. It is found that, admittedly, the service connection of the subject matter stands only in the name of the first plaintiff. Accordingly, it is found that following the surprise inspection, the second defendant has issued the show cause notice only to the first plaintiff, directing him to offer his explanation within the specific time, as regards the allegations contained in the said notice. Admittedly, the first plaintiff has sent a reply to the same. If the reply sent by the first plaintiff is found to be not satisfactory, he being the service holder, accordingly, it is seen that the defendants should have taken the follow up action only as against the first plaintiff. However, it is found that the impugned order has come to be passed against the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff, being the son of the first plaintiff and admittedly, the second plaintiff is not the service holder, it is found that as rightly argued by the plaintiffs' counsel, the impugned order has come to be passed against the second defendant without following the basic principles of rules of natural justice and as the impugned order has come to be issued without providing an opportunity to the second plaintiff to explain his stand, it is contended, naturally that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous and illegal. 12. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that in the written plea, the defendants have not taken a plea that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The defendants, however, contested the plaintiffs' suit on merits and however, the suit had come to be decreed by the trial Court as above stated. Despite the grant of the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial Court, it is seen that the defendants have not preferred any appeal challenging the same. On the other hand, only the plaintiffs had preferred the appeal, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court as regards the refusal of the relief of the permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from collecting the amount claimed in the impugned order. Even in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the defendants have not preferred any cross-objection. On the other hand, only the plaintiffs had preferred the appeal, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court as regards the refusal of the relief of the permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from collecting the amount claimed in the impugned order. Even in the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the defendants have not preferred any cross-objection. As seen above the first appellate Court had modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit laid by the plaintiff in its entirety. Assailing the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 13. Accordingly, when it is found that the defendants have not questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for entertaining the suit laid by the plaintiff, in any manner, in the written pleas and that apart, not even challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court, though it went against them, would only go to show that the defendants are not serious in their contest about the maintainability of the suit in the Courts below. If really, according to the defendants, the suit laid by the defendants is not maintainable, they would have taken a specific stand that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the other hand, such a plea has not been raised in the written statement and further, the said plea has also not been canvassed by the defendants in the first appellate Court. 14. As per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objection as to jurisdiction has to be taken in the Court of first instance, at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where the issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and the objections as to the jurisdiction should not allowed to be raised subsequently by any appellate or Revisional Court, unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. As far as this case is concerned, the defendants has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The defendants have also not questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the first appellate Court. As far as this case is concerned, the defendants has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The defendants have also not questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the first appellate Court. The defendants are thus found to be not aggrieved by the disposal of the suit laid by the plaintiff in their favour by the trial Court and the non raising of the issue of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court accordingly, has not resulted in any failure of justice as far as the defendants are concerned. If really, the defendants had any grievance over the same, they would have raised the said issue in the written pleas and also would have challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court and raised the issue in the first appellate Court and on the other hand, when it is found that the defendants have not raised such an issue in the written pleas and also not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court and not canvassed the said issue before the first appellate Court, it is found that at the second appeal stage, the defendants cannot be allowed to raise the issue of jurisdiction, particularly, in the light of the provisions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it is seen that there has been no consequential failure of justice, on the same being declined. Therefore, in view of the above position, in my considered opinion, the defendants at this stage of the matter, cannot be allowed to raise the issue of jurisdiction as their contention, with reference to the same, is found to be violative of the provisions of Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure and also the declinment of the raising of the issue at the second appeal stage would not occasion any failure of justice to the defendants. 15. In so far as this case is concerned, it is found that the plaintiffs have impugned the order issued by the second defendant on various ground and one such ground is the violation of the principles of natural justice. Even in the decision relied upon by the defendants' counsel, it has been held that ordinarily the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions of the Civil nature where the fundamental fairness of procedures is violated under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in the decision relied upon by the defendants' counsel, it has been held that ordinarily the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions of the Civil nature where the fundamental fairness of procedures is violated under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the plaintiffs have challenged the impugned order as violative of the principles of natural justice and when the same is obvious as above pointed out i.e., when the impugned order has been directed against the second defendant, without, he having been provided with any notice to show cause as to why the impugned order should not be passed and when the show cause notice has been issued only to the first plaintiff and despite the second plaintiff not being the service holder, he having been directed to pay the impugned amount by way of the order challenged, it is found that the impugned order has come to be passed in utter disregard and violative of the principles of natural justice i.e., without hearing the plaintiffs in any manner and on the above ground alone, it is found that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, the contention that the plaintiffs can be permitted to avail the remedies only by preferring the appeal in the appeal forum as provided under the Act and not by way of invoking the civil forum as such cannot be accepted. In this connection, the plaintiffs' counsel placed reliance upon the judgment and decree of this Court dated 14.12.2017, passed in S.A.No.61 of 2001, wherein it has been held, following the decision of the Apex Court that in a case, there is a challenge to the impugned order as violative of the principles of natural justice, in such circumstances, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted and the Civil Court is competent to try the suit for adjudicating the issue as to whether the impugned order has been issued following the fairness of the procedure by the defendants. Applying the same to the facts at hand, when it is found that the impugned order has been directed against the second plaintiff without hearing him in any manner and when in particular, the second plaintiff is not the service holder, primafacie, it is found that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore, the challenge made by the plaintiffs to the same, by way of the Civil action is found to be maintainable and accordingly, it is found that the defendants have also not raised the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in their written pleas and in such view of the matter, the contentions putforth by the defendants' counsel that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the lis laid by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted in any manner. 16. In the light of the above discussions, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that inasmuch as the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs challenging the impugned order as having been issued in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is found to be intact maintainable and hence, the contention of the defendants' counsel that the plaintiffs would be entitled to obtain the reliefs only after exhausting the appeal remedy provided under the Act, as such, cannot be made applicable to the case at hand and therefore, it is found that there is no violation of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the institution of the civil action by the plaintiffs, as far as this case is concerned. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated are answered. 17. In fine, the second appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any is closed.