1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below are the appellants.

2. Thecase in brief is as follows:-

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from enforcing the notice No.580 of 1985 dated 25.3.1985 and disconnect the service connection No.56, Karukkampalayam, Lakkapuram Pudur Village, Erode Taluk. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are carrying on business under the name and style of Palani Andavar Oil Mills at Karukkampalayam, Lakkapuram Pudur Village, Erode Taluk. Originally the said mills belonged to the first plaintiff. In the family partition dated 30.12.1983, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have been allotted under “C’ schedule along with the service connection. Ever since the date, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the owners of the properties and the oil mill is provided with service connection No.56. They are consuming energy and paying the electricity charges to the first defendant. The second defendant on 20.3.1985 filed a complaint against plaintiffs 1 to 3 before the Modakkurichi Police in Crime No.37 of 1985 for alleged offence under Section 379, IPC read with Section 33 o f Indian Electricity Act. It is stated that the second defendant and others inspected the place of business on 20.3.1985 and found the seals of the meter in the place of business of the plaintiff are not genuine. The plaintiffs and their men have no occasion to meddle with the meter or its seals. They have not committed any offence. The inspection is illegal and no action can be taken on the basis of the inspection. The second defendant having referred the matter to the police, it is premature for the defendants to arrive at any conclusion. The 2nd defendant on 26.3.1985 served a show cause notice to the first plaintiff threatening to disconnect the service connection. The first plaintiff also sent a reply. The defendants are acting arbitrarily without looking into the facts and they threatened to disconnect the service connection and hence the suit.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement adopted by defendants 2 and 3. On a report from the Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Lakkapuram that the meter connected to service connection No.56 of Karukkampalayam distribution was burnt and the second defendant along with the Assistant Engineer, Meter Relay Test, Erode and the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Erode proceeded to Karukkampalayam and inspected the service after notice to one T.Sadasivam, an Accountant in the Mill belonging to the plaintiffs. The inspection was done in the presence of said Sadasivam. None of the plaintiffs was available in the spot. During inspection, it was discovered that the original seals affixed to the meter were missing and in that place, counterfeit seals had been affixed. Apart from that having regard to the connected load of 56 Horse Power plus 360 watts for lighting, the recorded consumption of 73,626 units for the year previous to the date of inspection was very much less than what it should have been having regard to the number of working days, the number of working hours in each working day, and the nature of the work done. The consumption should have been 1,39,857 on the basis of a formula provided therefor under the terms and conditions of supply. The difference between the recorded consumption and the computed consumption taken in conjunction with the removal of the original seals and replacement of the original seals by counterfeit seals lead to the only possible conclusion that there should have been a theft of energy. Criminal complaint was also lodged at the Modakkurichi Police Station against the plaintiffs who are the owners of the service. The investigating officer disconnected and removed the meter as a material object. The defendants thereafter connected a healthy meter to the service and issued a notice on 25.3.1985 to show cause why the service should not be disconnected. The show cause notice was sent and enquiry was als