The plaintiff must exhaust the remedy provided under the Electricity Act before filing a suit for declaration and injunction.

1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 200/85 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram have preferred the present Second Appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 130/86 dated 22.10.87 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19.6.86.

2. The case in brief is as follows: —

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Admittedly, the plaintiff and his two brothers are running a Rice Mill under the name and style as Andavar Rice Mill. Previously, their father Kadar Oil Ravuthar was running the same. They have got a sanction load to use only 20 HP on 5.1.85, the squad of the Electricity Board inspected the service connection No. 31 in the rice mill and noticed the use of 35 HP, which is against the sanctioned load of 20 HP. On 11.2.85, a show cause notice was also issued by D3, calling upon them to pay further charge of Rs. 6255/-. No inspection was made as alleged by the defendants and only 20 HP was used by them and there was no violation on their part. Proper procedure has also not been adhered to by the inspecting authorities. They have been duly paying the consumption charged. Now, they have sent a notice of disconnection and hence, the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that in respect of the rice mill in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Only 20 HP was the sanctioned power load. During the time of inspection by the squad on 5.10.85, they noticed the use of 35 HP. In fact, the plaintiff was also present at the time of inspection made by the squad and he had also signed in the document. After observing all the formalities only, the show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff, calling upon them to pay the aforesaid amount as additional charges. The suit filed by the plaintiff is also not maintainable, since it was only a show cause notice, the plaintiff has to file an appeal the remedy provided under the Act.

4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed for issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.I and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the defendants. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B5 were marked. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 130/86 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram and Ex.A6 was also marked and after hearing the parties, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present Second Appeal.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

i. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is contrary to law and vitiated by errors of jurisdiction?

ii. Whether the lower appellate court is right in accepting Ex.A5 with formal proof especially when the contents therein are seriously disputed by the defendants?

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The points the arise for consideration are: —

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

8. Points: — There is no dispute that the service connection No. 31 is in Andavar Rice Mill in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his two brothers. The plaintiff filed the suit questioning the show cause notice sent on 11.2.85 calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 6,255/- by way of additional charges on the ground that the plaintiff had used 35 HP load whereas the sanctioned load was only 20 HP. No inspection was made by the defendants as alleged by them on 5.1.85 and in fact, they were using only 20 HP load and under the circumstances, the power supply is improper and illegal and the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief.

9. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the inspection was