JUDGEMENT :

The plaintiff in O.S.No.190 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, is the appellant in this second appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant/respondent herein namely., M.Veerappan had taken the suit electricity connection on 12.01.2001. On 28.07.2003, the Anti-Theft Squad of TNEB detected energy theft from the said connection. The respondent was called upon to show cause vide Ex.A.3 dated 29.07.2003. It was made clear that the respondent will be levied with assessment charges for the energy theft committed by him, if his explanation was not found satisfactory.

2. The respondent is said to have given his explanation dated 11.08.2003. Not satisfied with the same, Ex.A.4/assessment order dated 20.08.2003 was passed and the extra levy payable by the respondent was quantified at Rs.1,79,786/-. The respondent was called upon to pay the same in ten installments of Rs.17,979/-. A detailed worksheet was also enclosed along with Ex.A.4/assessment order. Thereafter, several communications were issued to the respondent calling upon him to pay the levied amount. Exs.A6 and A7 are the demands issued by the plaintiff. Exs.A.8, A.9 and A.10 are the acknowledgement cards signed by the defendant. Since the assessed amount was not paid by the defendant, the aforesaid suit came to be filed. The respondent filed his written statement denying the suit claim. The learned Trial Judge framed the issue as to whether the defendant was obliged to pay the suit claim. On the side of the plaintiff, an assistant engineer by name Jegatheesan was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence was marked on the side of the defendant. The learned Trial Judge by judgment and decree dated 21.02.2008 decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. Questioning the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.61 of 2008 before the District Court, Karur. The first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(a) Whether the Courts below right in holding that the civil court have jurisdiction to entertain the energy theft case?

(b) Whether the Courts below ought to have given proper inference to Ex.B.1?

(c) Whether the Courts below ought to have given proper inference to Ex.B.2?

(d) Whether the Courts below perverse the decreed suit without giving proper reason to Exs.B.1 and B.2?

(e) Whether in law the judgment and decree of the Lower Court is sustainable in reversing the well consider judgment of the Trial Court without rendering any specific findings?

(f) Whether the finding of Lower Appellate Court that the appellant has not proved the theft of energy is sustainable in view of Exs.A.6 and A.7, which are not disputed by the defendant? and

(g) Whether the finding of Lower Appellate Court that the Board has not proved theft of energy is sustainable when the defendant admittedly not questioned the final assessment order of the Board in a manner known to law?”

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and took me through the evidence on record and also the judgments of the Courts below and submitted that the substantial questions of law deserve to be answered in favour of the appellant. She called for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the defendant was prosecuted but the prosecution ended in acquittal. He would point out that the acquittal of the defendant was not challenged by the State. The plaintiff also did not file any criminal revision questioning the acquittal. He submitted that the fi