GUPTA, J.—An interesting question of law arises in this case. The non applicant instituted a suit for ejectment and for damages against the applicants in the Court of the Munsif Jodhpur District. On the first date of hearing, the defendants submitted an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, praying that the proceedings in the suit be stayed and the parties be directed to take recourse to arbitration, since the defendant applicants were and are always ready and willing to g€t the dispute between the parties settled in accordance with the provisions contained in the arbitration agreement. The trial court allowed the application and directed that the proceedings in the suit be stayed pending arbitration. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff landlord against the aforesaid order which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, by his order dated May 13, 1977, and the application under sec. 34 of the Act was rejected. The order passed by the learned District Judge has been challenged by the defendants in the present proceedings.

2. Mr. Kapoor, appearing for the plaintiff non-applicant, has however, raised a preliminary objection to the entertainment of the revision application on the ground that after the disposal of the appeal by the learned District Judge, the defendant-applicants sought adjournments twice in the trial court for filing their written statement and that in view of the aforesaid steps taken by the defendant in the proceedings in the suit, the bar of sec. 34 of the Act can no longer apply. The contention of Mr. Lodha learned counsel for the defendant applicants, on the other hand, is that the filing of the written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings in the suit can only debar a stay of proceedings in case such steps are taken before the application under section 34 of the Act is filed, but the same principle can no longer be extended even after the decision of the application under section 34 of the Act, either by the trial court or by the appellate court. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab High Court in the Hanuman Chamber of Commerce Ltd. vs. Parmeshri Lal Co. etc. (1) in support of his submission.

3. I have considered the rival contentions. Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act runs as under:—

"34. Where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the agreement or any person claiming under him in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may, at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceeding; and if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that the applicant was, at the time when the proceedings were commenced, and still remains ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper-conduct of the arbitration, such authority may, make an order staying the proceedings."

One of the conditions which must be complied with in order to unable a party to obtain an order of stay of proceedings under sec. 34 of the Act, is that such application should have been filed before filing the written statement or taking any other steps in the suit or proceedings. It is settled law that if a defendant asks for an adjournment seeking time to file a written statement then such a conduct on his part amounts to taking a step in the proceedings. It cannot be disputed that the words "taking any other steps in the proceecings" are words of general character and wide import and they refer to doing anything by a party in aid of the progress of the suit or proceeding. In the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. M/s. Janki Saran Kailash Chandra (2) an application for adjournment for fili

Click Here to Read the rest of this document