IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 AS.No. 368 of 2000(D) --------------------- OS.903/1993 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- 1. V. SADANANDAN, HINDU EZHAVA, PROPRIETOR OF KRISHNA THEATRE AND RESIDING IN HOUSE NO. 109, PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - II. DIED * ADDL. A2. INDIRA SADANANDAN, W/O/. LATE SADANANDAN, HOUSE NO. 109, PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-II. ADDL.A3. KISHORE SADANANDAN, S/O. LATE SADANANDAN, -DO- -DO- ADDL.A4. MEENA SADANANDAN, D/O. LATE SADANANDAN, -DO- -DO- * THE ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 11/11/2010 IN IA 3983/2010. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ds P.BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S.No.368 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in O.S.No.903 of 1993 before the court of 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. 2. It is stated that the plaintiff was served with a notice on 09.07.1993 directing him to remit an amount of Rs.10,470/60ps. Several other matters were also stated in the notice. In the notice it is also stated that the consumption of current for the three years is calculated at the rate of 65ps. per unit and the total amount due from the plaintiff was Rs.25,506/-. Out of the said amount of Rs.19,790/- already paid by the plaintiff is deducted and the balance amount to be paid is Rs.6,786/-. Rs.3,006/- is calculated by way of interest. According to the plaintiff the amount said to have been paid by him is more that what is stated in the notice. The plaintiff made mention of the various payments made by him in the plaint and it is pointed -:2:- A.S.No.368 of 2000 out that the total amount comes to a sum of Rs.20,172/-. In fact the plaintiff would claim that on actual calculation it can be seen that he had paid more than what is actually due from him. Therefore the suit was laid for a declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to pay amount of Rs.10,470/60ps as claimed by the defendants. 3. The defendants resisted the allegation in the suit and pointed out that the reason for issue an additional bill which according to them was revealing the true state of energy consumption and the amount due from the plaintiff. 4. On the above pleadings issues were raised. The evidence consists of Exts.A1 and A2 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants had DW1 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 marked. 5. On finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief the suit was dismissed. It is the said judgment and decree that is assailed in this appeal. 6. It is unnecessary to go into the details of various -:3:- A.S.No.368 of 2000 contentions raised by the parties on evidence for the simple reason that this can be disposed off on a short ground. The decision reported in PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER V. ASHWANI KUMAR [(1997) 5 SCC 120] had considered the question as to whether the civil court would be justified in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for when alternate remedy is provided by the statute. In the above decision it is held as follows:- The question then arises whether the civil court would be justified in entertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as contended by Shri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the objections were raised in the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the same were given up. Section 9 of the CPC provides that the civil court shall try all suits of civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication barred. Such suit would not be maintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the civil court has jurisdiction to go into and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamental fairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars adumbrated above do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been prescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implication, the cognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, the civil court shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the declaration -:4:- A.S.No.368 of 2000 without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the instructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated above. It cannot be disputed that the plaintiff, the appellant herein has a statutory remedy. There is no reason why he has not avail of that remedy in view of the decision of the Apex Court. No reasons are given to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Court. However, it is made clear that, if so advised, the appellant may prefer statutory remedy before the appropriate authority and if he file an appeal within a period of one month from today, it shall be duly considered and till then recovery proceedings shall not be resorted to. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE kkj