Availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal must be availed of.

The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit before the Court below.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot and prayed for ad-interim injunction against the revision petitioners in the petition in I.A.No.59 of 2005 in the said suit.

The learned District Munsif, having considered the rival submissions made on the basis of the records available, granted interim injunction as prayed for. The revision petitioners have come forward with this revision challenging the legality of the order passed by the Court below.

3. It is not in controversy that the revision petitioners purchased a portion of the land belonging to the respondent and acquired several other, properties so as to erect a new 110/33/11KV sub-station in respect, of Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle at a cost of Rs.775.40 lakhs and to draw high tension electrical lines across and over the lands be­ longing to the respondent as well as that of third parties, while so, the respondent filed the said suit and obtained interim injunction against the revision petitioners as referred to above. This revision petition is directed against the said order passed by the Court be­low I.A.No.59 of 2005 dated 8.6.2005.

4. Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the revision petitioners and Mr. Sathyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The respondent instituted the suit for per­manent injunction restraining the "Board" from erecting any electrical equipment or drawing electrical line across and over the suit properties belonging to him. In the petition in I.A.No.59 of 2005, he has prayed for interim injunction restraining the Board from install­ing any electrical equipment or drawing elec­tric line over and across the suit properties pending the, suit and the Court, below after hearing both sides passed an order on the basis of the records produced by them as prayed for in the said petition granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent herein.

6. Learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners has argued at the outset that the trial Court erred in granting interim injunction against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") from laying overhead lines contravening the provi­sion, under Sec. 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948). According to him, in spite of the mandatory provisions of law referred. To above and documentary evidence filed by the revision petitioners to prove the "sanctioned scheme" as per gazette notification., learned District Munsif granted interim injunction and therefore he has urged that the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over the subordinate Courts under Article 227, of the Constitution of India for the reason that the, impugned order is erroneous, as the learned District Munsif refused to exercise the jurisdiction and passed arbitrarily the order under challenge which is a perverse one resulting in manifest injustice to the interest of the "Board".

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that when the alternate remedy of an appeal as against the impugned order is available, the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable in law. He has cited the decisions, Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others (2002-1-LW. 65) (S.C.), Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar AIR 2003 SC 38 : 2002 (8) SCC 400: 2002-II-LLJ-1111, The Director of School, Education v. Venkatesan (2004 (4) M.L.J. 317), and S. Devi v. Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram (2005 (1) M.L.J. 178) in support of such contentions. Hence, it has become necessary to decide whether the Civil Revision petition is maintainable as a preliminary question before ever the case is considered on it own merits.

8. Learned senior counsel has argued at t