T. S. MISRA, J.:- This appeal arises in the following circumstances.

2. The appellants, before instituting the suit which has given rise to this appeal, had filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the deed of partnership. That application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the partnership deed was not duly registered under Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act and therefore the petition was barred by the provisions of Section 69 of that Act. The matter was brought to this Court in appeal. The order of the court below was upheld with the observations that the petition under Section 20 was not maintainable because of the bar created by Section 69 of the Act. The plaintiff-appellants thereafter filed the suit for rendition of accounts and, in the alternative, for dissolution of the firm in which the defendants were the partners. The defendants before filing the written statement filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit on the ground that there subsisted an arbitration agreement between the parties whereunder the matter in dispute should have been referred to arbitration and that the defendants had been ready, and willing to refer the matter to arbitration on the date of the institution of the suit and were still ready and willing to do so. In reply to that application the plaintiffs stated, inter alia that "if the defendants are still ready to get the dispute decided through the forum of arbitration, the plaintiffs agree that in this very suit an application be made under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act and get the dispute decided by the arbitrator appointed by this Honble Court". It was also urged before the Court below that in view of the decision given in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitration agreement was void and unenforceable. Hence the defendants were not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In support of their contention they had placed reliance mainly on the decision of this Court given in their petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The court below did not accept that contention and held that the arbitration agreement was not void but was valid. Since it did not find that the defendants had were not ready and willing to go in arbitration or that the defendants taken part in the proceedings before filing an application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act, the court below exercised its discretion in staying the suit by its impugned order. The plaintiffs have now come up to this court in first appeal.

3. For the appellants it was urged that the arbitration agreement was void inasmuch as the partnership deed which contained the clause relating to arbitration had not been registered under Section 58 of the Partnership Act. We are unable to accept this contention. It is not mandatory that all partnership agreements must be got registered under Section 58 of the Partnership Act failing which they would be void. A partnership agreement may be got registered and may not be got registered. The registration of the partnership agreement becomes relevant only when a suit to enforce a right a rising from a contract or conferred by the partnership Act is instituted in a court by or on behalf of a person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in a firm. However, in certain matters the registration of the partnership may not be necessary. As provided by sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.69 of the Partnership Act, if a suit or a claim or a set

off does not exceed Rs. 800/- in value, it would not be necessary to have the partnership deed registered before maintaining the suit. Similarly, if the suit is instituted for accounting or dissolution of the firm, it would not be necessary to have the partnership registered before filing the su