Ratio
There is an implied ousting of jurisdiction of Civil Court in a dispute involving theft of electricity in view of the availability of specific forum of appeal under the Electricity Act.

M. DURAISWAMY, J.

The above second appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 22 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Panruti confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 641 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Panruti.

2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 641 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Panruti for the following reliefs.

(a) declaring the order passed in letter No.EE/0&M/PRT/IEI/F.Doc/AN29/92 dated 18. 92 is baseless; arbitrary; unlawful and against the principles of natural justice and ultra vires and as void ab initio;

.(b) to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents acting on their behalf from disconnecting the service connection of S.C.123 of Maligampattu SSV standing in the name of the plaintiff;

.(c) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and

.(d) to pass such further or other decree…

3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

.(i) According to the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant gave a notice to the plaintiff on 37. 1992 stating that the plaintiff has committed theft of electrical energy. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff is directly tapping power from low tension lines and utilizing energy for running submersible motor for pumping water.

.(ii) According to the plaintiff, he is an agriculturist and there is no need for committing any theft of energy since he is getting power free of any charge. The plaintiff sent a reply notice dated 18. 1992 to the defendants. The defendant lodged a criminal complaint with Kadambuliyur Police Station and complaint was registered as Crime No. 614 of 1992. The 2nd defendant issued a letter dated 18. 1992 to the plaintiff levying extra levy to the tune of Rs. 1,96,049/-

(iii) According to the plaintiff, the said levy is baseless, arbitrary, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. In the said order, it was stated that the amount should be paid on or before 19. 1992 failing which the service connection would be disconnected. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:

(i) According to the defendants, on 27. 1992, the plaintiff’s service connection was inspected by the 3rd defendant along with the 4th defendant and during the course of inspection they found that electrical energy was tapped from the main conductor. At the time of inspection, motor inside 150 feet depth well was functioning. The capacity was tested and found as 15 horse power. Taking direct connection to the motor was in addition to the regular service connection given to the plaintiff. Therefore direct tapping of energy and using unauthorized load of 15 hp amounted to theft of energy.

.(ii) Immediately a complaint was given to the Kadambuliyur Police Station and the case of theft of energy was registered in Crime No. 614 of 1992. A show cause notice was issued on 27. 1992 to the plaintiff since the explanation offered by the plaintiff was not satisfactory, the 1 st defendant issued assessment notice dated 28. 1992 assessing Rs. 1,96,049/- as compensation and demanded the said amount from the plaintiff. Without paying the amount demanded and without preferring an appeal as provided for, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(iii) The plaintiff also filed another suit in O.S. No. 620 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore for permanent injunction. Therefore, for the very same cause of action, the plaintiff filed two suits one before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and Another before District Munsif Court, Panruti.

(iv) As per the terms and conditions of supply, for the offence of theft of energy, the board is entitled to claim compensation. If the compensation amount is not paid, the Electricity Board is entitled to disconnect the service connection. The suit is not maintainable since the appeal