A party cannot rely on some of the terms of a contract and at the same time contend that a term of the same contract does not correctly represent the term as to payment.

SINHA, J. :- This is an appeal against an order made by Ray, J. dated the 29th May, 1962 staying the suit, filed by the respondent-appellant being suit No. 1432 of 1961 (Bengal Jute Mill Co. Ltd. v. Laichand Dugar) and all proceedings thereunder. The facts are as follows : On or about 10th October, 1960 the petitioner agreed to buy from the respondent and the respondent agreed to sell to the appellant 80,000 bags of B. Twills manufactured by the respondent, at the rate of Rs. 160/- per 100 bags, free alongside export vessel in the Port of Calcutta. The contract, being contract No. 280 dated 10th October, 1960, was made by an exchange of bought and sold notes made in the usual form of the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd., Calcutta through a broker S. N. Goenka who is a licensed broker of the said Exchange. Both the bought and sold notes contained a written condition that delivery of the goods was to be given against payment in cash positively on 10th October, 1960 against Mills pucca delivery order. There is the usual Arbitration clause for reference of disputes under the contract to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On the 22nd March, 1961 the petitioner submitted certain disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On the 29th August, 1961 the respondent filed a suit in this Court being suit No. 1432 of 1961 (Bengal Jute Mill Co., Ltd. v. Lalchand Dugar). On the 18th November, 1961 the petitioner made an application for stay of the suit and all further proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It is this suit which has been stayed by an order dated 29th May, 1962. I regret to say that the learned Judge has given no reasons for making the order. With respect, I think that in such cases it is essential to set out the reasons. A stay of a suit, is in a way, an adjudication of the rights of the parties. Although such an order is discretionary, the Court must exercise a judicial discretion and inasmuch as such a stay can be ordered on a number of grounds, it is extremely difficult for a Court of appeal to decide the correctness or otherwise of the order made, unless it knows the precise grounds upon which the learned Judge has acted, in ordering a stay of proceedings. It would be convenient here to state certain facts. The case of the respondent is as follows : Pursuant to the contract, the respondent duly tendered Mills pucca delivery order in respect of the said 80,000 bags of B. Twills on 10th October, 1960 and demanded payment in cash against such presentation, but the petitioner failed and neglected to make payment in cash and to take delivery of the said pucca delivery order. According to the respondent, the petitioner committed a breach of the said contract and the respondent accepted the breach and treated the contract as cancelled, which thereby became void. It is further stated that on the 12th October, 1960 the parties again entered into a fresh contract in respect of the identical goods but at a different price, through the same broker, being contract No. 281 of 1960. It is stated that the petitioner has committed a breach of this contract also. The case for the petitioner is as follows : According to the petitioner, the terms as to payment was not by cash but by crossed cheque. It is stated that on the 10th October, 1960 the respondent sent a darwan to the office of the petitioner with the Mills pucca delivery order together with a bill for Rs. 1,28,000/- after the usual office hours. The cheque was being drawn up and was going to be signed by a partner of the firm, who had gone to answer a natures call. The sellers darwan was requested to wait but did not do so and left the bill promising to collect the cheque on the next morning. On the next day, as the darwan failed to turn up, the petitioner contacted the sellers office over the phone when it demanded cash payment instead of cheque. This was complie