ORDER Fazianddin, J. - This appeal by the defendant has been directed against the order dated 16th November, 1979 passed by the 17th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 54-B of 1978 rejecting the appellants' application for stay of the suit filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff - respondent entered into a contract with the appellant for construction of certain parts of roads in Cantonment area, Jabalpur. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as security in connection with the performance of the said contract. The respondent instituted the suit for refund of the said security amount after completion of the contract by contending that he had completed the contractual work to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, whereafter no demand certificate was furnished to the defendants appellants but the appellants did not refund the security amount despite several requests and hence the suit for refund thereof. After service of summons upon the defendants-appellants they filed an application under section 34 of the Act for stay of the proceedings of the suit and praying for a reference of the dispute to the arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause 70 of the Agreement by contending that it was found from the post payment audit and technical examination of the works and final bill, that a over payment of Rs. 15,791.30 has been made which was recoverable from the plaintiff even after the completion of the contract, from his security amount and other sums due to him, under the terms of clauses 67 and 68 of the Agreement. The trial Court rejected the said application by the impugned order by holding that according to clause 68 after the completion of the work no demand certificate was issued and, therefore, there was no dispute referable for arbitration and the matter has to be decided under the general law and not by reference to arbitration. After perusal of Clauses 67, 68 and 70 of the Agreement I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable in law. It appears that the learned trial Judge did not go into entire terms no. After perusal of Clauses 67, 68 and 70 of the Agreement I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable in law. It appears that the learned trial Judge did not go into entire terms no. 67 of the agreement, first part of which clearly provides that whenever any claim for the payment of a sum of money arises out of or under this Contract against the contractor the same may at any time thereafter may become due to the contractor under this or any other contract with the Government or from any other sum due to the contractor from the Government or from the security deposit. Second part of clause 67 further provides that the Government reserve the right to carry out a post-payment and audit technical examination of the works and the Final Bill, including all supporting vouches and enforce recovery when detected. A reading of the 3rd and 4th part of Clause 67 will go to show that the Government was entitled to recover from the contractor in any of the methods stated above, if any over payment is discovered and that such of the Government to adjust the over-payment shall not extend beyond the period of 3 years from the date of the payment of the final sum, or, in the case of a minus bill, from the date the net amount of the Final bill is communicated to the contractor. In the present case there is neither allegation nor any suggestion, that it is not being claimed within the period of 3 years. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there has been a full and final settlement under the contract and no demand certificate was also issued to the contractor, and, therefore, the rights and obligation under the contract came to an end as such the arbitration clause also came to an end. But according to the appellant's allegation that, from the post-payment audit and technical examination of the works and final bill, an over-payment of Rs. But according to the appellant's allegation that, from the post-payment audit and technical examination of the works and final bill, an over-payment of Rs. 15,791.30 was found which was recoverable from the contractor and the arbitration clause-67 itself makes a provision for recovery and adjustment thereof against any sum due to the contractor including the security deposit within a period of 3 years from the date of the final payment or from the date the net amount of the final bill is communicated to the contractor. Simply because no demand certificate was issued to the contractor but subsequently a mistake of over-payment was discovered later on, it cannot be said that the terms of clause 67 could not be enforced. A contract is the creature of an agreement between the parties and where the parties under the terms of the contract agree to incorporate an arbitration clause, that clause stands apart from the rights and obligations under that contract, as it has been incorporated with the object of providing a machinery for the settlement of disputes arising in relation to or in connection with that contract. The questions of rights and obligations under the contract or of a full and final settlement of the contract relate to the performance or discharge of the contract, and, therefore, far from putting an end to the arbitration clause, they fall within the purview of it. This was the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar Valley Corporation v. K. K. Kar (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 158). Having regard to the facts of the present case in my opinion, the terms of clause 67 of the agreement, clearly covered the dispute between the parties, and, therefore, it would be referrable in terms of the arbitration clause. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Impugned order is set aside and the appellant's application under section 34 of the Act is allowed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.