The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit before the Court below.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot and prayed for ad-interim injunction against the revision petitioners in the petition in I.A.No.59 of 2005 in the said suit.

The learned District Munsif, having considered the rival submissions made on the basis of the records available, granted interim injunction as prayed for. The revision petitioners have come forward with this revision challenging the legality of the order passed by the Court below.

3. It is not in controversy that the revision petitioners purchased a portion of the land belonging to the respondent and acquired several other, properties so as to erect a new 110/33/11KV sub-station in respect, of Vellore Electricity Distribution Circle at a cost of Rs.775.40 lakhs and to draw high tension electrical lines across and over the lands be­ longing to the respondent as well as that of third parties, while so, the respondent filed the said suit and obtained interim injunction against the revision petitioners as referred to above. This revision petition is directed against the said order passed by the Court be­low I.A.No.59 of 2005 dated 8.6.2005.

4. Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the revision petitioners and Mr. Sathyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The respondent instituted the suit for per­manent injunction restraining the "Board" from erecting any electrical equipment or drawing electrical line across and over the suit properties belonging to him. In the petition in I.A.No.59 of 2005, he has prayed for interim injunction restraining the Board from install­ing any electrical equipment or drawing elec­tric line over and across the suit properties pending the, suit and the Court, below after hearing both sides passed an order on the basis of the records produced by them as prayed for in the said petition granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent herein.

6. Learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners has argued at the outset that the trial Court erred in granting interim injunction against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") from laying overhead lines contravening the provi­sion, under Sec. 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948). According to him, in spite of the mandatory provisions of law referred. To above and documentary evidence filed by the revision petitioners to prove the "sanctioned scheme" as per gazette notification., learned District Munsif granted interim injunction and therefore he has urged that the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over the subordinate Courts under Article 227, of the Constitution of India for the reason that the, impugned order is erroneous, as the learned District Munsif refused to exercise the jurisdiction and passed arbitrarily the order under challenge which is a perverse one resulting in manifest injustice to the interest of the "Board".

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that when the alternate remedy of an appeal as against the impugned order is available, the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable in law. He has cited the decisions, Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others (2002-1-LW. 65) (S.C.), Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar AIR 2003 SC 38 : 2002 (8) SCC 400: 2002-II-LLJ-1111, The Director of School, Education v. Venkatesan (2004 (4) M.L.J. 317), and S. Devi v. Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram (2005 (1) M.L.J. 178) in support of such contentions. Hence, it has become necessary to decide whether the Civil Revision petition is maintainable as a preliminary question before ever the case is considered on it own merits.

8. Learned senior counsel has argued at the outset that the petition for temporary injunc­tion against the Board is not maintainable in view of the mandatory provision, under Sec. 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1949, irre­spective of the provisions under Sections 12 to 18, 15 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which mandate that the Board should obtain prior permission from the owner of the land before ever any electric installation is sought to be erected in the disputed land. Sec. 42(1), of the Electricity (Supply) Act, l948 reads as under: -

“42. Powers to Board for placing wires, poles, etc. (1) Notwithstanding, anything contained in Secs. 12 to 16 and 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), but without prejudice to the requirements of Sec. 17 of that Act where provision in such behalf is made in a sanctioned scheme, the Board shall have, for the placing of any wires, poles, wall-brackets, stays apparatus and appliances for the transmission and distribution of electricity, or for- the, trans­ mission of telegraphic or telephonic communications necessary for the proper, co-ordination of the works of the Board, all the powers which the telegraph authority possess under Part III of the Indian Tele­graph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) with regard to a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained:

Provided that where a sanctioned scheme does not make such provision as aforesaid, all the provisions of sec. 12 to 19 of the first-mentioned act shall apply to the works of the Board.”

9. Further, the learned senior counsel has cited the decisions of this Court in E, Venkatesan v. Chairman, TN. Electricity Board, Madras (AIR 1997 Mad 64), Nithyanandam, M. v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu, Electricity Board, Madras (1994 WRIT L.R.445) in support of his further argument that despite the fact that the respondent has alienated a piece of land by a registered sale deed in favour of the Board to execute the works for installing the new sub-station as referred to above, he has come forward with the petition for temporary injunction against the "Board" and that therefore in view of the mandatory provision under Sec. 42 of the, Electricity (Supply) Act 1949, the same is not maintainable in law. Further he has referred me to decision in G. Rajamani v. Pethimuthu & Ors. (2003) 1 T.N.L.J. 22) for the position that the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be restricted to a case of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law where it, is imminent that Court can interfere with the order and set aside the same.

10. In this context learned senior counsel fairly conceded that, even though the impugned order is appealable, this revision petition is fled to invoke the supervisory powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that despite the fact that the Board had produced documentary evidence before the trial Court to show that the scheme under question was a sanctioned one and approved by the Government, as evidenced by the Xerox copy of the gazette, the Court below did not care to receive the same and to dispose of the petition for interim injunction in the light of such documentary evidence. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that no such document was produced and marked before the Court below as stated by the Board in the grounds and that he is not in a position to vouchsafe such contention now put forth in this revision.

11. A careful reading, of the impugned order shows that though the documents relied on by the revision petitioner are produced before this Court, they have not been produced before the trial Court and that therefore the trial Court was constrained to rely on the provisions under Sections 12 to 19 of the Electricity Act 1910 so as to hold that this case would not fall under the mandatory provision under Sec. 42 of the, Indian Electricity Supply Act. In view of such factual aspect of the case, learned counsel for the respondent has however contended that the revision petitioners having filed the memo to the effect that as per Sec. 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act the consent of the land owner is not necessary for erecting any pole, tower or to draw any line across the land to erect 110/33-11 KV sub-station for the uninterrupted supply of power to the public, and that it is also undertaken that the Board will not erect any pole, tower in the suit properties, except from drawing overhead lines across the land 6f the respondent, no document was produced to show that the said scheme falls under the category of "sanctioned scheme" of the Government.

12. In the above circumstances, it has become necessary to analyse whether this revision petition is maintainable in law, as the Board had not preferred any appeal as provided under Civil Procedure Code against the impugned order. It is useful to quote the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar (supra) which reads as under:

“Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decision, made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of, fact being within the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is not called for.”

13. Similarly, it was laid down by this Court reiterating the same principle of law in Director of School Education, Chennai v. Venkatesan (2004 4 M.L.J. 317) which reads as under:

"Normally, when there, is another alternative remedy open to the party, which is effective and adequate to meet the needs of the case, the High Court will not use its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Other adequate and comprehensive remedy by way of appeal to appellate court is available, but not availed of interference under Article 227 is incor­rect.”

14. The other decisions as referred to above, namely, Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others (2002) 1-L.W. 65) (S C.) and S. Devi v. Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram (2005) 1 M.L.J. 178) are also reiterating the same principle of law as referred to above.

15. Nextly, the decisions cited by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners may be considered. In the decision, T.N.E.B. Basin Bridge Power House v. Thangaprakasam (1999) II C.T.C. 614), the judgment and decree rendered by the lower appellate Court was questioned in revision and with reference to the same, the finding was rendered by this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, the order under question in Umayambikai Mills (P) Ltd., Sattur v. Paulraj Nadar (1984) L.W. (Crl) 118) was with reference to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram at Sivaganga challenged under Secs. 397 and 403 Cr.P. C.

16. Similarly, the impugned order passed by the Court below in the execution proceedings was questioned in the civil revision petition and it came up for consideration in G. Rajamani v. Petchimuthu and others (2003) 1 T.N.L.J. 22). The judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court were challenged in the Second Appeal before this Court and therefore the decision was rendered by this Court in A.R.A.S. Duraisamy Nadar v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (2001) 4 C.T.C. 129) invoking the appellate jurisdiction. In Nithyanandam, M. v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) and E. Venkatesan v. Chairman, T.N. Electricity Board, Madras AIR 1997 Madras 64 orders were pronounced in the writ petitions invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, it can be seen that none of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel can be applied to the facts of this case. Hence, I am unable to follow the ratio laid down therein so as to come to a different conclusion from that of the Court below arrived at on the basis, of the records available in the case. Hence this Court is unable to find any irregularity or perversity the impugned order.

17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the Board having failed to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, as such an alternative remedy is available under law, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances mentioned above, the revision petitioners are at liberty to work out their rights before the Court below in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself on merits and in accordance with law by not later than 30.6.2006. Consequently, C.N.P.No.16066 of 2005 is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.