Mr. P. K. Bahri ( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by defendants 1 and 2 under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act seeking stay of the suit. Earlier, defendant No. 3 had moved a similar application but the same was dismissed in default on February 21, 1990 and that application has not been got restored although Mr. H. C. Malhotra represents defendants 1 to3. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 3,04,897. 67 paise on the averment that plaintiff is manufacturer of fans of various types and size and defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of the defendant No. 1 and after some joint discussions between plaintiff and defendants, the defendant No. 2 vide letter dated. February 21, 1987 offered to undertake stator winding jobs for the plaintiff and as he had difficulty in arranging the necessary equipment for performing the aforesaid job, he required the plaintiff to supply such equipment on payment. The necessary equipment was supplied by plaintiff and as defendant No. 2 later on wanted to carry on regular winding up work for the plaintiff, an agreement dated February 21, 1987 was executed between the parties and it was one of the terms of the agreement that the plaintiff shall provide the material to defendants 1 and 2 on payment and unused material was to be returned and plaintiff insisted on some bank guarantee or some deposits or some surety to ensure the payment of the materials to be supplied to defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 then had furnished the Title Deed of an immovable property as colateral security. Defendants 3 and 4 had become guarantors under the said agreement and defendant No. 3 had in fact deposited Title Deed of his property as a security for the debt. ( 3 ) IT is averred that vide letter dated. April 30,1988 defendants 1 and 2 informed that they have wound up their workshop and would be returning the unused material to the plaintiff. It is in the case of the plaintiff that unused material was in damaged condition and was mere scrap which was returned to the plaintiff. It is the ease of the plaintiff that total amount due under the said agreement from the defendants is Rs: 3,04,897, The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. It is in the case of the plaintiff that unused material was in damaged condition and was mere scrap which was returned to the plaintiff. It is the ease of the plaintiff that total amount due under the said agreement from the defendants is Rs: 3,04,897, The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 1,50,000 as damages on account of abrupt termination of the contract by the defendants 1 and 2 causing loss to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that Rs. 2,51,005. 05 paise is due as the cost of the material supplied to the defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff has claimed 18% interest per annum on the amount due. ( 4 ) IN the appliction seeking stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, defendants 1 and 2 have pleaded that the material was supplied by plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 under purchase orders and one of the printed conditions in the said purchaser orders provided for reference of disputes arising out of the said purchase order for arbitration of Indian Chamber of Commerce, Dehi. So, the defendants have prayed that the suit should be stayed as the matter is liable to be referred for arbitration. ( 5 ) IT is pertinent to mention that in the application it is nowhere pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 have been ready for reference of disputes for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause appearing in the aforesaid purchase orders. Before institution of the suit, the plaintiff had served a legal notice claiming the amount due on defendants but defendant had not responded with any reply pleading that they are ready and willing for referring the disputes for arbitration and the disputes should be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause appearing in purchase orders. ( 6 ) APART from this lacuna in the case of defendants 1 and 2 Seeking stay of the suit, it is to be made. clear that the damages which have been claimed by the plaintiff do not arise out of any controversy with regard to the supply of materials by the plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 under the purchase orders. Damages had been claimed on the basis of the independent agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants and thus, as a part of the clause of action pertaining to claim of Rs. Damages had been claimed on the basis of the independent agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants and thus, as a part of the clause of action pertaining to claim of Rs. 1,50,000 is not covered by any arbitration clause, it would not be in the interest of justice to stay the suit. It is true that defendants 3 and 4 are not parties to the purchase orders which contains the arbitration clause but they are parties to the independent agreement executed which does not contain arbitration clause. In Lovely Benefit Chit Fund v. Puran Dutt Sood etc. 1, it has been held that the liability of surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act. Thus, dispute between the principal debtor and the creditor, if subject to arbitration clause, binds the surety even if the surety has not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause. By that as it may in view of the facts that defendants 1 and 2 have not shown their readiness and willingness at all materials times to refer the disputes for arbitration and the fact that claim of Rs. 1,50,000 as damages having arisen from an agreement which does not contain arbitration clause leads me to exercise the discretion in not staying the suit. ( 7 ) I dismiss the application.