IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 539 of 1997() ----------------------------- AS.12/1996 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOCHI OS.546/1992 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------ M/S.WEST SIDE HOSPITAL (P) LTD., A COMPANY IN CORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT XII/710, FATHER MATHEW KOTHAKATH ROAD, PANAYAPPALLY, KOCHI- 2, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, DR.B.RAJENDRAN, AGED 43, SON OF M.BALARAMAN. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI SMT.NANDINI MORRIS SRI.B.REGHUNANDANAN SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN SMT.A.SREEKALA (VAIKOM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI- 682 002. 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B. MATTANCHERY, KOCHI 682 002. BY ADV SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NOS.1433 & 1434/1997 IN SA. NO.539/1997 DISMISSED 07/07/2010 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.539 of 1997-E ------------------------------------- Dated 7th July 2010 Judgment Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him in OS No.546/92 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kochi, the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 2. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction. The Anti Theft Squad belonging to the KSEB on a local inspection found that there was tampering of the meter. So, the plaintiff was served with a demand notice seeking remittance of an amount of Rs.81,393.50. Labelling the demand as arbitrary and illegal and pointing out that he was not liable to pay any amount, the suit was laid. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and pointed out that before issuing the demand notice, the plaintiff was not informed about the same. SA 539/97 2 4. The Trial Court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendant examined DW1 and had Exts.B1 and B2 marked. The Trial Court was not inclined to accept the case of the plaintiff and therefore, dismissed the suit. 5. The defendants carried the matter in appeal as AS No.12/96 before the Additional Sub Court, Kochi. After elaborate evaluation of the evidence, the Appellate Court concurred with the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. When the matter was taken up for hearing before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in view of the statutory remedies available to him, it may not be possible to maintain a suit, especially in the light of the prohibition imposed under the Electricity Act. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that reserving the liberty of the appellants to pursue the statutory SA 539/97 3 remedies available to them, the appeal may be dismissed. 7. The Electricity Act prohibits filing of a suit in cases where appellate provision is available as per the Act. So, reserving the liberty of the appellants to pursue the statutory remedies available to them under the Act, the appeal is dismissed. If the appellant intends to file any appeal, he may file it within two weeks from today. Coercive steps shall not be taken till then. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta SA 539/97 4