This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ranipet reversing the dismissal of the suit by the District Munisf, Sholinghur.

2. The Brief facts of the case are as follows;

The plaintiff had installed motor in the water pumping station for disbursement of water to the public. The permitted load was 25 H.P and the plaintiff had installed two motors of with 12.5 H.P each under service connection No.118.

Since enough water could not be pumped with 12.5 H.P motor, the plaintiff had replaced one 12.5 H.P motor with 21 HP motor. After inspection, the 1st defendant issued a notice proposing to levy damages and asked the plaintiff to remove the motor. The plaintiffs reply was rejected and by an order dated 18.07.95, damages to the tune of Rs.91,913/- was levied by the 1st defendant. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which also turned out to be a futile exercise. Aggrieved the plaintiff had filed the suit for a declaration to declare the order levying damages as null and void and for consequential injunction to refrain the board officials from interfering with the electricity supply to the service connection No.118. The main contention of the plaintiff was that the motor with additional H.P was only a standby motor and the two motors were never used at a time. The plaintiff also relied upon the circular of the Board in No.SE/IEMC/EE3/AEE2/D.705/93(Technical Branch) dated 21.09.1993 recognising and stating that the local bodies were entitled to hold standby motor with interlocking arrangement and the same need not be treated as violation of rules. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that both the motors with 33.5 H.P were being used in violation of the rules and terms of supply. The defendants further contended that both the motors were connected and in running condition. The defendants also stated that they had no intention to disconnect the service line and sought the dismissal of the suit.

3. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidences, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved the plaintiff filed the appeal which was allowed. Aggrieved the defendants have preferred this second appeal inter alia contending that the 21 H.P motor was connected to the electricity board main service without permission, that the first appellate court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had violated clause 22.05 of the terms and conditions of supply and the circular of the board cannot override the terms and conditions of the supply.

4. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

1. Whether the lower appellate court is right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the light of Clause 22.05 of the terms and conditions of supply of Electricity ?

2. Whether lower appellate court is right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent has not committed the offence of unauthorised Additional Load when the respondents have admitted the erection of two motors to the capacity of 21 H.P. And 12.5 H.P.?

3. Whether circular marked along with Ex.P6 will prevail over the clause 22.05 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity?

5. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants relying upon the terms and conditions of supply contended that installation of the motor with 21.5 HP without permission is an offence and hence the defendants are entitled to levy penalty. The counsel further contended that the circular of the board does not have statutory force and cannot override the terms of supply. The fact that no loss has occurred to the board cannot be the reason to discard the violation. The counsel further contended that at the time of inspection, both the motors were running and that the suit itself was not maintainable at the first instance and hence sought the leave of the court to frame additional substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of the suit. T