JUDGMENT Lort-Williams, J. - This is an application for stay, under sec. 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It is opposed on three grounds, the first being that the applicant took a step in the proceedings within the meaning of the section prior to making this application for stay; secondly, that he was not ready and willing to go to arbitration, and, thirdly, that the discretion of the Court should be exercised in refusing the application, because the matter in issue is eminently suitable for decision by the Court, and because there are a number of similar suits by the Plaintiffs against different Defendants raising the same or similar issues. [His Lordships after considering the second and the third grounds proceeded] 2. With regard to the first point, it appears that the applicant served his application for stay upon the Plaintiff on the 18th November, and on the 19th his application with the necessary papers was filed in Court. On the 19th the Plaintiffs took out a summons to compel the Defendant to file his written statement, it being already considerably out of time. This was down for hearing on the 21st, and as Counsel for the Plaintiffs has admitted that it was adjourned by consent and the Defendant has sworn in his affidavit that this was done without prejudice to his present application. I am satisfied that it was so adjourned by consent and without prejudice to the applicant's pending application for stay of the suit. The position was explained to the master and the adjournment granted. 3. These being the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant did not take any step in the suit prior to making his application for stay. 4. The only case which has caused me some uncertainty upon the point is that of Sarat Kumar Roy v. Corporation of Calcutta I. L. R. 34 Cal. 443, s. c. 11, C. W N 306 (1909). In that case the Calcutta Corporation applied for further time to file their written statement and obtained a fortnight's time. Subsequently, they applied to the Court for a reference to arbitration and stay of proceedings. It was held that such an application for time was a step in the proceedings, within the meaning of sec. 19 of the Arbitration Act. 5. Subsequently, they applied to the Court for a reference to arbitration and stay of proceedings. It was held that such an application for time was a step in the proceedings, within the meaning of sec. 19 of the Arbitration Act. 5. Woodroffe, J., at page 488, referring to the circumstances of that case, stated that the applicant had been in a dilemma, for if he had filed his written statement, an objection would have been taken under the section; if, on the other hand, he had not, and had not taken further time to do so, then in the event of the failure of his application for stay, the case would have been transferred to the undefended list. The learned Judge said further that:- These difficulties might have been avoided by a prompt application for stay of proceedings before the expiry of the period allowed for filing the written statement. While also it is true that the immediate object was to procure a respite, the ultimate object was (in the event of the application for stay being refused) to file a defense. What was done therefore was a step in the proceedings, and was none the less so because in a particular eventuality it would not have been necessary for the party applying to avail himself of the liberty given to file a written statement after the usual time allowed for that purpose. 6. It is to be observed that in that case the applicant had taken out a summons for extension of time to file his written statement, which was obviously a step in the proceedings within the meaning of the section. For this reason that case is distinguishable from the present case. 7. In Ives and Barker v. Williams [1894] 2 Ch, 478, 489., Lindley, L. J., said:- The authorities show that a step in the proceedings means something in the nature of an application to the Court, and not mere talk between solicitors or solicitor's clerks, nor the writing of letters, but taking out a summons or something of that kind. 8. In the present case the summons was taken out by the Plaintiffs and no such step was taken by the Defendant. All that he did was to tell the Master what the position was and ask him to adjourn the hearing of the Plaintiff's summons. 9. 8. In the present case the summons was taken out by the Plaintiffs and no such step was taken by the Defendant. All that he did was to tell the Master what the position was and ask him to adjourn the hearing of the Plaintiff's summons. 9. Eventually this was done by consent and without prejudice, as I have already stated. 10. In these circumstances the application must be allowed with costs, and the proceedings must be stayed. Solicitors: P. D. Himatsingka & Co. for the Applicant; Khaittan & Co. for the Opposite Party.