ORDER 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit (R.C.S. No.659 of 2012) for declaration and permanent injunction that disconnection of electricity to its unit/premises (entertainment park/gaming zone) was illegal. Another prayer is that the respondents defendant Nos. 1 and 2 should be directed to compensate the appellant with damages. 2. The suit has been dismissed by three Courts on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff (appellant herein) ought to have resorted to the remedy provided under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. The matter has been referred to this larger bench, perhaps, for an authoritative pronouncement as to whether the suit was maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. According to us, the aforesaid question does not survive for an answer. Electricity, admittedly, was restored within three (03) days of the disconnection. Hence, the declaration and injunction sought for that disconnection of electricity was illegal has spent its force. 5. Insofar as the claim of compensation and damages are concerned, neither the loss suffered has been quantified nor there are any pleadings to that effect made in the plaint. The suit, even if held to be maintainable, therefore, would hardly hold out and survive to permit the plaintiff to lead any evidence in the absence of pleadings. 6. We, therefore, are of the view that in the facts of the present case the order of the High Court affirming the view taken by the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the suit was not maintainable ought not to be disturbed as the suit itself has become academic and redundant. The question arising may be answered in an appropriate proceeding. 7. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed.