JUDGMENT : S.D. AGARWALA, J. 1. This is a revision u/s 115, CPC directed against the order dated 12th November, 1984, rejecting the application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The Plaintiff opposite party had filed a suit No. 522 of 1983 seeking a relief for the recovery of Rs. 62,875.19 P. being the amount of outstanding dues, including salary and provident fund etc. from the revisionist and other Defendants. In the court below, the revisionist filed an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act with the request that the court below may be pleased to stay the proceedings of the suit in view of an agreement of arbitration between the parties. This application was dismissed by the court only on the ground that the applicant and other Defendants had moved an application for time to file a written statement, which was allowed on payment of costs. Since the cost was not paid hence the application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has urged that in view of the U.P. Amendment in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 the view taken by the court below is manifestly erroneous. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. In my opinion, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is well founded. By U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976, which was to come into effect from 1st January, 1977, Explanation II was added to Section 34 of the Act, which was as under: Explanation II. A mere application for time to file a written statement or a mere contest to an interlocutory application for injunction, appointment of receiver or the like, shall not amount to taking any steps in the proceedings. 6. By means of this Explanation, it is now made clear that a mere application for time to file a written statement would not amount to taking any steps in the proceedings. Section 34 of the Act clearly provides that it is open to a person to apply u/s 34 of the Act for stay of the proceedings before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings. Section 34 of the Act clearly provides that it is open to a person to apply u/s 34 of the Act for stay of the proceedings before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings. Since by the U.P. Amendment, the mere fact that an application is made for time to file a written statement does not amount to taking steps in the proceedings the application u/s 34 could net have been said to be not maintainable in the eye of law. The view, to the contrary, taken by the court below, is manifestly erroneous. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has urged that there was no agreement of arbitration between the parties and, as such, the application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable at all This is a matter which has to be gone into by the court below on merits and it cannot be decided by this Court in revision. 8. In the result, I allow the revision, set aside the order dated 12th November, 1984, and remand the case to the court below for decision of the application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act un merits very expeditiously. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.