JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Mirzapur, rejecting an application of the Appellant for the stay of proceedings in the suit in view of Section 34, Arbitration Act. 2. The copy of the order filed along with the memorandum of appeal is not a correct copy of the order appealed against. The learned Counsel for the Appellant wanted time to file the correct copy. The record of the case is in Court and we have looked up the correct order. In view of the opinion we have formed about the appeal we do not think it necessary to grant time for filing a correct copy of the order appealed against. 3. The Appellant's application was rejected because he had applied twice before for time to file the written statement. Those applications were made in April and May, 1955. The application u/s 34, Arbitration Act was made on 7-7-1955. The case reported in United Provinces Government Vs. Sri Har Nath, AIR 1949 All 611 lays down that an application for grant of time for filing a written statement would amount to the taking of steps in the proceedings within the meaning of that expression in Section 34, Arbitration Act. The view of the learned Civil Judge is, therefore, perfectly correct. 4. It was however contended on behalf of the Appellant that the case reported in Roop Kishore Vs. United Provinces Government, AIR 1945 All 24 contemplate certain cases in which applications for adjournment of a case to enable the Defendant to file a written statement might not amount to a step in the proceedings within the meaning of Section 34 of the Act. As pointed out in the 1949 case it is not clear from the 1945 case as to what circumstances would make an application for adjournment in order to file a written statement not a step in the proceedings. We cannot contemplate any case except if it be that the Defendant applicant himself states in the application that he is making that application without prejudice to put in an application u/s 34, Arbitration Act. It appears that the principle behind the provisions of Section 34, Arbitration Act is that a party is not to apply for the stay of the proceedings once it submits to the jurisdiction of the court. It appears that the principle behind the provisions of Section 34, Arbitration Act is that a party is not to apply for the stay of the proceedings once it submits to the jurisdiction of the court. The moment a party indicates that it submits to the jurisdiction of the court it (sic) its right to move an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. An application for adjournment to file a written statement would obviously be an application indicating that the applicant was submitting to the jurisdiction of the court but due to certain circumstances was not in a position to file the written statement and that he would file such a written statement if some time was granted to him. It can, therefore, be that when such an application expressly mentions that it is without prejudice to the Defendant's right u/s 34, Arbitration Act that is be possible to say that that application would not amount to a step in the proceedings. We however leave it open for further consideration whether such an application will actually not amount to a step in the proceedings. The applications presented by the Appellant in April and May, 1955 were not applications with prejudice to the right of the Defendant u/s 34, Arbitration Act and. therefore, must amount to steps in proceedings as held by the court below. 5. We, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss it summarily under Order XLI, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure.