Civil Courts jurisdiction is impliedly barred where effective remedy of appeal is provided.

Appeal against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.422 of 2005, dated 23.02.2006 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.1474 of 2003, dated 16.02.2005, on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1474 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who has lost the suit and the appeal filed therefrom has filed the above second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above second appeal as culled out from the plaint are set out below:-

The plaintiff has been provided with two electricity service connection meters, bearing service connection Nos.152:01:1273 and 152:01:1274. In said meters, Service Connection No.152:01:1274 became defective and a complaint was lodged on 26.06.2001, but the defective meter was not at all replaced. On 03.05.2002, at about 1.00 pm, the third defendant inspected the said defective service connection meter, without giving any notice of inspection and theft of electrical energy was alleged. The complaint given by the plaintiff to change the meter was not accepted. The third defendant insisted for the payment of compounding charges and therefore the plaintiff under protest paid a sum of Rs.1,19,655/-on 04.05.2002 by way of two cheques to avoid disconnection. The defective meter was not sent for testing and therefore there was non-observance of the procedure. There was no theft of electrical energy and hence the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 112. 2002 requesting the defendants to refund the amounts. Since there was no response, the suit has been filed seeking declaration to declare the levy of penalty for alleged electrical energy theft in service connection No.152:01:1274 in the name of the plaintiff dated 03.05.2002 as null and void and to declare that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the compounded fine amount of Rs.1,19,655/- to the defendants and for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to adjust the compounding charges collected from the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,19,655/-towards future electricity consumption charges for service No.152:01:1274 with the second defendant.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a detailed written statement inter-alia contending as follows:-

The suit is not maintainable as there is no provision in the Electricity Act as well as in the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for adjustment of the amounts paid by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff had committed theft of electrical energy, he paid the compounding charges to avoid criminal prosecution. Having attempted theft of electrical energy and having paid the compounding fees, the plaintiff is estopped from raising a contrary plea. At the time of inspection of the electricity service connection of the petitioner, the required formalities were observed and it was found that the supply was drawn directly bye-passing two out of three electric phase meter and thereby avoided a consumption assessment. Pursuant to the inspection, the plaintiff voluntarily came before the defendants on the next day itself and expressed his willingness to pay the loss sustained by the Board and as well as agreed to pay the compounding charges to avoid criminal prosecution and there was no compulsion or pressure exerted on the plaintiff. At the request of the plaintiff only, the consumption charges was made expeditiously and the loss was assessed at Rs.60,566/- and the compounding charges were arrived at Rs.59,089/- and the same was paid by the plaintiff on 04.05.2002 itself by way of two cheques. The defendants specifically pleaded that the suit is not maintainable.

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the penalty levied dated 03.05.2002 to the service connection No