JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. - This is an appeal against an order passed by the court below allowing the application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act and directing the appellant to refer the dispute to arbitration as per agreement between the parties. 2. It appears that the appellant had been given contract for electrification of multi stories building. The contract was worth Rs. 66,510/- against which a payment of Rs. 55,495/- was made to him and, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the balance amount, being suit No. 769 of 1983. 3. Apart from the work done under the contract bond the plaintiff alleges that he had to carry out additional work of the value of Rs. 4,44,491.68 under the direction of the Engineer-in-charge against which he has only been paid Rs. 13,996.36. Since a sum of Rs. 3,06,526.32 remained in balance the plaintiff filed suit No. 564 of 1984 for the recovery of the same. The allegation made was that these works were not covered by the bond but it had been executed under the direction of the Engineer-In-charge as extra work and the same was not being gratuitous the plaintiff was entitled to payment in respect thereof under Sec. 79 of the Contract Act. 4. While this suit was pending the defendant made in application under Sec. 34 on the allegation that there was a clause for arbitration in the contract, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable and the dispute had to be referred to arbitration and in the meantime the suit proceedings should remain stayed. An objection to this application was filed by the plaintiff in the court below contending that this work is not covered by the contract and being extra work the suit was legally maintainable. Rejecting the plaintiff's contention the court below has allowed the application under Section 34 and a direction has been given to the plaintiff to take steps for referring the matter to arbitration. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. 5. Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that as the contract bond was not on the record and only its photostat copy alone was filed by the defendant, as such the same should not have been looked into by the trial court. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been filed. 5. Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that as the contract bond was not on the record and only its photostat copy alone was filed by the defendant, as such the same should not have been looked into by the trial court. The second leg of his argument is that the claim in respect of which the present suit is filed is not covered by the arbitration agreement as the work has not been executed under the contract but merely on the direction of the Engineer-in-charge. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we find no merit in any of these contentions. The appellant has filed copy of the application under Sec. 34 and an affidavit in support thereof. He has also filed this objection against the said application and also copy of his affidavit in support thereof. While in the objection of the defendant arbitration clause has been quoted in full and is also supported by the affidavit but the plaintiff in his reply has not controverted that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement in question, in the terms stated by the defendant. It was, therefore, undisputed between the parties that in the contract bond there was a term regarding arbitration in the same language as contained in the affidavit of the defendant. The only dispute raised was that the work in question for which the claim was made in the suit was not covered by the contract bond being extra item of the work. Therefore, the first question, that mere photo copy has been relied upon by the court below looses its importance. In fact it was not disputed by the plaintiff at all that the term of arbitration contained in the bond was in the same language as set out by the defendant in the counter affidavit. At the initial stage and particularly when there was no serious challenge to it the court could certainly look into the photostat copy of the contract bond to ascertain the actual workings of the arbitration clause. We find no illegality if the court below has looked into to. 7. At the initial stage and particularly when there was no serious challenge to it the court could certainly look into the photostat copy of the contract bond to ascertain the actual workings of the arbitration clause. We find no illegality if the court below has looked into to. 7. As for the second question whether the work done by the plaintiff was or was not covered by the contract bond we may refer to para 12 of the plaint which the appellant himself has field As Annexure 'I' to the affidavit. The paragraph is as under : That the extra work done by the plaintiff being within the frame work of the original contract at the instructions of the Executive Engineer VI Temporary Division, Kanpur and the said work not having been done gratuitously the defendant is liable to pay the cost of the said work under Sec. 70 of the Contract Act. 8. From the above averments in the plaint it is obvious that the stand of the plaintiff was that the work was done as extra item under the instruction of the Executive Engineer but the same was within the frame work of the original contract. If the plaintiff seeks to invoke the contract for the purposes of rates etc. He cannot shy away from the term regarding arbitration also. In the face of this allegation in para 12 of the plaint we find it difficult to agree with the appellants contention that the extra work executed by him was not covered by the terms of the contract. Obviously therefore, the defendant was within its right to seek reference to arbitration and in the meantime for stay of the suit. 9. Having given our thought to the matter in controversy we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself, as we find no illegality in the order of the court below. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.