JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. - This is defendants' appeal Under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, rejecting the application made by them under section 34 of the said Act for stay of Suit No. 45 of 1977. The said suit was filed by Saroop Narain, Respondent who is own father are defendant appellants. The relief claimed by the plaintiff respondent was for injunction restraining defendant appellants from interfering with his possession over the agricultural plots and an Ambassador Car, the details of which have been in the plaint. 7th January 1978 Was the date fixed in the suit when the defendant appellants appeared to oppose the application for injunction. On that date they took time for filling objection to the application for injunction and also for filling written statement. On 6-2-78 the defendant appellants moved an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit on the ground that there had been a family partition between them and their father plaintiff respondent on 1-2-76 and in that family partition the parties had also agreed to get their dispute decided through arbitration of one Rajendra Pratap Singh. The defendants prayed that as the dispute involved in the present suit was covered by the arbitration clause of the aforesaid Family settlement, the proceedings of the suit were liable to be stayed. The application filed under section 34 was contested by the plaintiff respondent. After hearing the parties the trial court found that the defendant appellants having taken time to file written statement, could not invoke section 34 for the purpose of the stay of the suit. It also held that there was no evidence of readiness and willingness on the part of the defendant appellants to abide by the result of arbitration and, therefore, the application was misconceived. The trial court further held that the clause relating to arbitration inserted in the family partition was auspicious in nature. On these findings the trial court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the defendant appellants have filed the present appeal. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the court below erred in holding that having taken time for filing written statement, the defendant appellants could not move the application for stay of the suit. He referred to and Arbitration Act by U.P. Act No. 87 of 1976. Aggrieved, the defendant appellants have filed the present appeal. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the court below erred in holding that having taken time for filing written statement, the defendant appellants could not move the application for stay of the suit. He referred to and Arbitration Act by U.P. Act No. 87 of 1976. Explanation 2 reads as under :- "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." This explanation was inserted by the U.P. Legislature with a view to put over the difficulties which used to be realised by the courts previous to the insertion of the aforesaid explanation. In fact there was a sharp division of opinion amongst various High Courts as to whether if a defendant applied for time to file written statement, is entitled to get the proceedings of the suit stayed. To get over the difficulty, Explanation 2 was inserted. At the relevant time when the application under section 34 was Explanation 2 came into force. Consequently, learned counsel for the defendants is right in submitting that the court below erroneously rejected the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on this ground. The other ground given by the court below was that in the absence of averments made in the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the defendant appellants, it was not possible to hold that they were ready and willing to abide by the arbitration agreement. We have perused the application filed under section 34 of the aforesaid Act, we are unable to find anything in the same showing necessary averments in that respect. However, in our opinion, making of averments is not a ritual and court is entitled to look into the conduct of the parties otherwise from the circumstances emerging on record, submission to make averments may not be fatal. In the instant case we are not able to get anything on the record to lead us to the conclusion on this point in favour of the defendant appellants. In the instant case we are not able to get anything on the record to lead us to the conclusion on this point in favour of the defendant appellants. On the first date the defendant appellants applied for time for filing a written statement and on the second date they moved the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act showing that they were ready and willing to perform the contract of going to the arbitration. The defendant appellants did not file any affidavit in support of it. In the absence of any material on record the court below rightly decided that the defendant appellants had failed to establish the case of readiness and willingness. Another circumstance which appealed to the court below with which we find ourselves to be in complete agreement is that the circumstances of the present case were such which cast a suspicion on the correctness of the case of the defendant appellants about the insertion of the clause relating to references to arbitration. The court below rightly held on that basis that the present was not a fit case for staying the proceedings of the suit and asking the arbitrator to look into the matter. The dispute in this case is between the father and his sons. It will be in the interest of the parties for preservation of peace and harmony that the suit itself is decided at an early date. We accordingly direct the court below to expeditiously decide the suit for giving priority to it over other cases. For the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.