This second appeal is by the Karnataka Electricity Board (now the `KPTCL) and the challenge is to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court by which the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed in respect of the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and thereby the judgment of the Trial Court, which had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, was thus revised. Hence, the appellants call in question the decision of the lower Appellate Court.

2. The facts in brief are to the effect that the appellants-KEB called upon the respondent-plaintiff to pay Rs.41,397/-, which is the difference of electricity charges worked out at normal rates following the B phase L.T. wire being found cut. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said demand made on it, moved the Civil Court for the relief of declaration and injunction, though initially the suit was one for the relief on injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground of the suit being not maintainable in view of the regulations of the Electricity Board.

3. The plaintiff appealed to the lower Appellate Court which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and i1so declared that the plaintiff is not liable to pay Rs. 41,397/- and

the appellants were restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to the meter THT-14 installed in the suit premises.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Sri N. Krishnananda Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants-KEB, submitted that the lower Appellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff when the suit itself was not maintainable, as rightly held by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel referred to the relevant sections of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as to the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988 (Regulations, 1988’ in short) to submit that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the demand made by the KEB as per Ex. P.1, the remedy lies in preferring an appeal to the Appellate Authority provided under the Regulations and the Civil Courts jurisdiction is ousted. Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which bars the Civil Courts jurisdiction was also pressed into service.

6. In addition, the learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions in The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited now GESCOM, Bidar and Others v Ishwaramma and Another ILR 2005 Kar. 5206: AIR 2006 Kant. 23, Mafatlal Industries Limited and Others v Union of India and Others (1997) 5 SCC 536 and the unreported decisions of this Court in

R.S.A. No. 404 of 2002, W.P. No. 140 of 2004 and C.R.P. No. 168 of 2005 to submit that, in all the decisions, this Court has taken the consistent view that in respect of the matters covered by the Regulations, 1988, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction and by implication, the Civil Courts jurisdiction is ousted. Therefore, the view taken by the Trial Court is just and proper. But, the lower Appellate Court committed serious error in not properly considering the various decisions cited before it. As such, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained in law for the above reasons.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Sri I.G. Gachchinamath for the respondent-plaintiff argued that the lower Appellate Court has committed no error because, Ex. P.1 that was issued to the plaintiff was only a notice but, it was not an assessment order and secondly, the said document-Ex. P. 1 was not issued by an Authorised Officer and, as such, no appeal can be preferred by the plaintiff against the demand made as per Ex. P.1. In addition, no mahazar was conducted in regard to the allegations as regards `B phase wire being found cut. The learned Counsel also referred to the observations of the lower Appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff has filed electricity bill as per Ex. P. 9 and, therefore, when