( 1 ) IN the suit requiring defendants 1 and 2 to render true and correct accounts of the dealings on behalf of the plaintiff and upon such true and correct rendition of accounts, a decree for recovery of the amounts, so determined and found due and payable to the plaintiff and requiring defendant No. 3 to take effective action against defendants 1 and 2, defendants 1 and 2, by this LA. , under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, pray for the stay of the proceedings in this suit requiring the plaintiff to be directed to approach defendant No. 3, Delhi Stock Exchange, for appointment of the arbitrator in accordance withthe law.

( 2 ) IT is the say of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a mamber of Kanpur Stock Exchange and the plaintiff started having dealings with defendants 1 and 2, who are the members of Delhi Stock Exchange (Defendant No. 3), from September 1990,that dealings of purchase and sale of shares continued till February 1992 and during this period, large transaction has taken place with defendant No. 2, for which, the plaintiff has not been paid his du. es nor defendants delivered the shares for the last more than an year.

( 3 ) AS far as this I. A. is concerned, it has been the say of defendants 1 and 2 that all the transactions of shares between the plaintiff and defendants concerng defendant No. 3 exchange are subject to the rules and bye-laws of defendant No. 3, (Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited); that under bye-law 247 (b) the dealings with regard to the shares with the plaintiff constitute agreements between defendant No. I and the non-member and all dealings and transactions between the parties shall have to be submitted to an arbitrator, to be decided by arbitration as provided under Rules, bye- laws and regulations of the exchange; that all or any question related to such transaction, has also to be submitted to and. decided by arbitration, as provided by bye-law 247 (a) and (b) of bye-laws of defendant No. 3; that the subject-matter in the suit can only be resolved by arbitration, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the present suit and the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act

( 4 ) THE plaintiff is admittedly not the member of Defendant No. 3 but a member of Kanpur Stock Exchange, as averred in the plaint. It is suggested from the plaint and the documents on record that there have been dealings concerning defendant No. 3 stock exchange between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The allegation in the plaint is that there have been dealings of purchase and sale of shares between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 from September, 1990 to February, 1992 and that the defendants did not pay the money due to the plaintiff and also did not deliver the shares for the last more than five years.

( 5 ) MS. Bhalla, counsel for defendant No. 3 has referred,to clause (a) of Bye-law No. 247 of Bye-laws and Regulations of defendant No. 3 nd contended-that sharing of brokrage is no critarion between the member and any other person and that the plaintiff, who has the dealing concerning stock exchange, would fall within the ambit of word "any other person", occuring in clause (a) and that word "non-member" does not mean remisier, authorised clerk or employee or any other person only, but amongst other persons, non-member includes these persons also and that under clause (a), the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 would be liable to be referred to the arbitrator and the suit stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It is further contended that the contract note, which is in form "a" in the bye-laws and also produced with the IA, will also bring the plaintiff within the scope of clause (a) of bye- law 247.

( 6 ) AS against this, it is submitted by Mr. Malhotra, on behalf of the plaintiff that bye-laws are for administration and governance of defendant No. 3; that the plaintiff being a non-member is not covered by clause (a) of bye-law 247; th