JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act has been preferred by Bareilly Holding Limited against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, staying the proceedings of suit No. 306 of 1977. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 2. Suit No. 306 of 1977 was filed by the plaintiff appellant, Bareilly holding limited, for recovery of Rs. 2,59,265.78. Three types of claims which were made by the appellant are mentioned in Annexure A, B and C appended to the same. 1. Annexure A was about street lighting account for the period from November. 1974 to July 1975 ; 2. Annexure B was for street lighting in respect of maintenance charges for the period March 1975 to July 1975 ;and 3. Annexure C was about details of outstanding dues in respect of the street Lamps installed on 31st July. 1975. 3. The defendant, Municipal Board, filed an application for stay of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act alleging that as under the agreement, the dispute was referable to Arbitration, hence, the suit was liable to be stayed. Paragraph 9 of the application as under : "That as per Rule 13 of U.P. Electricity (Duty) Rules of 1952, the disputes between licences or appointed authorities and their consumers regarding the rate of levy of duty or of the amount of duty realised is also referable to Deputy Electrical Inspector. Since this dispute is also relating to electricity duty hence it is referable to the arbitration of the said Authority". 4. The application for stay was contested by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the dispute involved in the suit was not referable. 5. The trial court allowed the application by saying : "The suit is stayed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act as prayed. The plaintiff may approach the State Government for appointment of an arbitrator under section 52 of the Indian Electricity Act. Consequence follows : Consign the record, let a copy of this judgment be placed on the file of Suit No. 307 of 1977 Bareilly Holdings v. The Municipal Board, Bareilly also." As against said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel contended that as the defendant bad been seeking time to file written statement, the application for stay was not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel contended that as the defendant bad been seeking time to file written statement, the application for stay was not maintainable. For the submission of the plaintiff -appellant taking of time amounted as a step in aid of filing of written statement. 1 he submission was not accepted by the court below and we are also of the same view. Taking of time for filing written statement after the amendment made by the U P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, could not amount to taking any steps in the proceedings. The amendment is quoted below : "Explanation 2-A mere application for time to file a written statement or in mere contest to an inter-locutary application for injunction, appointment of receiver or the like, shall not amount to taking any steps in the proceedings. The first argument, therefore, fails. 7. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that as the provisions of the Electricity Duty Act did not apply, the court below was not justified in directing the plaintiff-appellant for approaching the State Government for appointment of arbitrator on that basis The submission appears to be sound. Section 52 of the Electricity Duty Act applies only to cases where any matter is directed to be determined by the arbitration by the Act itself. In that event, the Arbitrator would have to be appointed to adjudicate upon the dispute arising thereunder. In the instant case, the dispute is not with regard to any of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. Consequently. Section 52 did not apply. 8. The other provision on the basis of which the hearing of the suit was sought to be stayed was Rule 13 of the U.P. Electricity Dufy Rules. Rule 13 was framed by the State of U.P. in-exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the U P. Electricity (Duty) Act. 1952, Rule 13 provides that disputes between the licensee or appointed authority and their consumers regarding the rate of levy of duty or of the amount of duty realised shall be preferred to the Deputy Electrical Inspector for decision. In the instant case, the dispute is such, which is covered by Rule 13. 9. We, therefore, find that the court below was right in staying the suit under Section 34 because of the dispute being referable to the Arbitrator. In the instant case, the dispute is such, which is covered by Rule 13. 9. We, therefore, find that the court below was right in staying the suit under Section 34 because of the dispute being referable to the Arbitrator. Since the matter is an old one, we would like to observe that on the dispute being referred, it will be adjudicated upon within six months of the same. 10. Subject to the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.