The central legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit related to electricity matters if the plaintiff has not exhausted the remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act.

1. This appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2007, passed in A.S.No.23 of 2006, by the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, in setting aside the dismissal Judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006 emerged in O.S.No.20 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Virudhunagar and in remanding the suit to the Sub Court, Virudhunagar for fresh disposal.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, precisely but narratively, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.20 of 2004 in the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction on the main ground that the Electricity Board Authorities without adhering to the procedures and throwing to winds the principles of natural justice proceeded with the enquiry based on the Second show cause notice which itself was issued only at the instance of the direction given by the Honourable High Court in W.P.No.19788 of 2001. According to the plaintiff, the authority has not given enough opportunity to put forth the case of the plaintiff that there was excess billing and that as to prove as to how the Electricity Board was wrong in calculating the consumption charges.

4. Per contra denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the allegations/averments in the plaint, the Electricity Board filed the counter, the quintessence of which would run thus:

The plaintiff illegally evaded huge electricity charges to the tune of Rs.2,44,07,935/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Four Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five only), due to theft of electricity. When the Electricity Board took action, the plaintiff approached the Honourable High Court, whereupon the Honourable High Court set aside the first show cause notice issued by the authorities concerned and directed the authority to conduct enquiry in accordance with Rules after issuing fresh show cause notice. Thereupon, the second show cause notice was issued and the matter was processed as per law and it was concluded on 21.04.2004. However, the suit O.S.20 of 2004 was filed on 29.04.2004 without disclosing the final order passed and also without preferring appeal to the authorities concerned. The civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Electricity Board prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

6. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit giving a finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and on the factual merits also, it was held that the plaintiff had no case.

7. Challenging and impugning the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2004 was filed before the District Court concerned.

8. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.266 of 2006 was filed before the appellate Court by the plaintiff and he got an order to the effect that it would be sufficient if he pays only 60% of the current consumption electricity charges. Further, the first appellate Court set aside the Decree and Judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the case as per law.

9. Being aggrieved by, such an order of remand, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is focussed on the main ground that the first appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. The first appellate Court wrongly remanded the matter.

10. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the original suit?

(ii) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court?

11. Heard both sides.

12. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would run thus.

13. Undoubtedly and indisp