JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a partnership on the basis of a registered agreement dated 11-1-1962, the details of which are not relevant for the disposal of this appeal. The prayer was for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and for other reliefs. Summonses were duly served on the Defendants. Sri. R.N. Bhoi, Advocate, filed power for the Defendants on 19-2-1963. On the same day a petition was filed on their behalf asking for two months' time to file written statement. Time was allowed till 20-3-1963 for filing written statement. On that day the Defendants filed another application asking for one month's time to file written statement alleging that they had taken steps for obtaining some important documents necessary for drafting the written statement. Time was allowed till 5-4-1963 when again the Defendants filed a further application for time to file written statement. Time was allowed till 19-4-1963. On that day, the Defendants did not file the written statement but on the other hand filed an application u/s 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act asking for stay of further proceedings in the suit. Reliance was placed on Clause 23 of the agreement which is to the effect. Any dispute arising out of this partnership business or interpretation of this DEED shall be referred to a set of three Arbitrators, one to be nominated by each of the disputants and the third to be nominated by both of them, and their decision shall be final thereon. The Plaintiffs filed an objection resisting stay. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 29-4-1963,' directed that the proceedings in the suit would be stayed till the parties referred their dispute to arbitration. Against this order, Plaintiffs have filed the appeal u/s 39 (1) (V) of the Act which provides an appeal against an order staying legal proceeding where there is an arbitration agreement. 2. The only point raised by Mr. Rangarao is that the Defendants by their various applications for time to file written statement submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and can no longer invoke their right to have the matter disposed of by arbitration and hence the suit cannot be stayed u/s 34 of the Act. 3. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, Section 34 of the Act may be analysed. 3. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, Section 34 of the Act may be analysed. It enacts where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him commences any legal proceeding 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 proceeding, apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings, and if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be refer red in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that the Appellant 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. It was laid down in Anderson Wright Ltd. Vs. Moran and Company, that in order that a stay may be granted under the section, it is necessary that four conditions should be fulfilled. Those are (i) The proceedings must have been commenced by a party to an arbitration agreement (ii) The legal proceeding which is sought to be stayed must be in respect of matter agreed to be referred to (iii) The Applicant for stay must be a party to the legal proceedings and he must have taken no steps in the proceedings after appearance. It is also necessary that he should satisfy the Court not only that he is but also was at the commencement of the proceedings ready and willing to do everything necessary for the proper conduct of the arbitration and (iv) The Court must be satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred to an arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement. In this case, condition No. (i) has been fulfilled. The applicability of condition No. (ii) has not been raised at the bar. The applicability of condition No. (i) may be examined on the assumption that condition No. (ii) has been fulfilled. The only question for consideration, therefore, would be whether by asking for adjournments to file written statement, the Defendants bad taken some steps in the proceedings. 4. The applicability of condition No. (ii) has not been raised at the bar. The applicability of condition No. (i) may be examined on the assumption that condition No. (ii) has been fulfilled. The only question for consideration, therefore, would be whether by asking for adjournments to file written statement, the Defendants bad taken some steps in the proceedings. 4. It is to be clarified that the relief for stay of legal proceedings instituted in a Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph, their Lordships pronounced that even if the conditions specified in the section are satisfied, the Court may refuse to grant stay if it is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The power to stay legal proceedings is thus discretionary. The discretion must, however, be properly exercised. This dictum comes within the purview of condition No. (iv). No inflexible rule can, however, be laid down to govern the exercise of this discretion. It should be exercised according to common sense and justice. 5. Steps in the proceedings are words of general character and wide import and would embrace within the amplitude a variety of acts. The meaning of the expression has not been satutorily defined. Courts have therefore laid down certain tests for determining whether an act of a party is a step in the proceedings or not. The leading decision on this point is reported in Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett (1896) A.C. 1. That was a case which is on all fours with the case before me. There the Defendants received summon and after appearance obtained an order for further time to file written statement. The House of Lords held that this was a step in the proceedings. Lord Chancellor Halbury refused to attempt any definition of a step in the proceedings and observed that an application for time to file written statement was a step. Lord Shand expressed the same view and observed. This appears to me to have in effect an abandonment of the proposal to have the subject of the cause disposed of by arbitration. Both in the English and Indian Courts the aforesaid test has been followed. Lord Shand expressed the same view and observed. This appears to me to have in effect an abandonment of the proposal to have the subject of the cause disposed of by arbitration. Both in the English and Indian Courts the aforesaid test has been followed. If the Defendants display an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and to give up the right to have the matter disposed of by arbitration, the act must be regarded as a step in the proceedings. 6. Under Order 5, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, every summons shall be accompanied by a copy of the plaint, or if so permitted, by a concise statement. In this case, the position is accepted that a copy of the plaint accompanied the summons. In the plaint a clear reference was made to the registered deed of partnership dated 11-1-1962 and the basis of the application for stay u/s 34 of the Act is Clause 23 of the agreement. With clear notice of the agreement Defendants applied for time on three dates to file written statement. These acts on the part of the Defendants clearly display an unequivocal intention on their part to proceed with the suit, and to give up their right to have the matter disposed of by arbitration under Clause 23 of the agreement. The applications for time to file written statement constituted steps in the proceedings. This case is directly covered by the decision of the House of Lords cited above and Union of India v. Hans Raj Gupta and Co. It is remarkable that the learned District Judge completely over looked this aspect of the case and granted stay. 7. I would allow the appeal and vacate the order granting stay and direct that the suit be disposed of as early as possible Parties to bear their own costs. The records of the case be set back forthwith. Final Result : Allowed