Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—The present second appeal has been filed against judgment and order passed by Court below by which defendants’ appeal has been allowed and suit filed by plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.

2. Facts arising out of present second appeal are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration against Corporation-respondent on the ground that he has installed a tube-well and pumping set for the purposes of agriculture having connection No. A-2620 with five horse power. Father of appellant is also having another connection, plaintiff has got no concerned with the said connection. According to appellant there is no dues and bills are always being paid when it has been raised by the Corporation. Up-to 31.1.1995, all bills have been paid. Motor installed in the tube-well were stolen, therefore, after that when there is necessity, he put a motor and get the water from the tube-well and if power is not being supplied then motor is operated with tractor for providing water to the field. On 25.1.1996 when appellant was crushing sugar cane, employees of the Corporation demanded certain illegal amount which was refused. A false report was lodged at the police station and a demand for realization of the electricity dues to the tune of Rs. 38,960/- was raised.

3. Respondents after receipt of notice filed a written statement denying claim made in the plaint but admitted it to this extent that as payment was not made, therefore, an assessment was done. On 25.1.1995, a surprise visit by the employees of the Corporation was done then it was found that appellant was using a motor of extra 7.50 horse power connected with crusher and tube-well for the purposes of irrigation. On that very day inspections were conducted at about 13 places and an FIR were lodged and assessment accordingly was made on the basis of surprise inspection. Trial Court after considering claim of parties frame about five issues and one of the main issues was whether defendants are entitled to realize the amount mention in the demand notice, whether the suit was barred by Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1958 and Section 330 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and whether the provisions of Section 34/38 of the Specific Relief Act has been followed. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were clubbed and a finding has been recorded that defendants have assessed the appellant regarding theft of electricity though plaintiff has said that he was having valid connection. A finding has been recorded that as regards assessment, defendants have not submitted any document that any notice was given before the assessment. Plaintiff has proved that he is having a valid connection. Defendants have failed to prove that on 22.5.1995 raid was conducted at the tube-well of the appellant. No document has been submitted by defendant that on the basis of raid, assessment of bill was prepared and then it was send to the appellant. After recording such findings trial Court decreed the suit by restraining Corporation from realizing any amount.

4. Defendants-respondents filed an appeal and Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that as plaintiff-appellant is having remedy of appeal under the Act, therefore, suit cannot be held to be maintainable and trial Court has wrongly decreed the suit. Issue No. 6 was framed by the Appellate Court and a finding to that effect has been recorded that defendants-respondents have brought to the notice Section 23 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Consumers Regulation 1984 which gives power to consumer that, in case, if he is dis-satisfied with assessment, can file an appeal. But admittedly, he has not approached the appellate form after the assessment. The Appellate Court has also placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court on this issue and has recorded a finding that in view of judgments, in case, such dispute has been raised by plaintiff, then aggrieved person has to approach the Appellate Forum and in view of Section 9 of Civil Procedure