JUDGMENT N. N. Mittal, J. - An order rejecting an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has been challenged by one of the defts. in this appeal. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the dispute between the parties relate to the partnership between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and it fully covered the disputes raised in the suit and as such the application under Section 34 was legally maintainable and could not be rejected for the reasons set out in the impugned order. 3. Sri R. G. Padia has filed caveat on behalf of the respondents. 4. Since a very short question is involved in this appeal we are disposing of the appeal itself at the stage of admission as permissible under the rules of the Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit and must fail. 6. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 along with their father were carrying on business in partnership in the name and stayle of M/s. B. T. Paul and Sons since January, 1959. On the death of their father in 1966 the firm as reconstituted and in place of the deceased father their mother was admitted as a partner and a fresh partnership deed was executed on 24.12.1966. Admittedly the mother has also now died. It is also admitted that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are partners of M/s. B. T. Paul & Sons as would be evident from the copy of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (Annexure 10) of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. In the suit the plaintiff had come with the allegations that defendant No. 2, who is the wife of defendant No. 1, was carrying on business in the name of Sukhdeo Steel cutter and weldors and in connection with that business she was using and usurping the material belonging to the partnership with the help and connivance of defendant No. 1. In order to prevent misuse of the partnership property by defendant No. 2 the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from using, utilising usurping or misappropriating the property of the partnership in whole or in part. 7. In order to prevent misuse of the partnership property by defendant No. 2 the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from using, utilising usurping or misappropriating the property of the partnership in whole or in part. 7. During the pendency of the suit and before defendant No. 1 had filed a written statement the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was moved on the ground that the dispute raised in the suit was fully covered by arbitration clause and as such further proceedings in the suit may be stayed and the matter in dispute be referred to arbitration in accordance with clause 18 of the Partnership deed. 8. Rights of the defendant to move application despite putting in contest of the interim injunction application is not disputed. Despite the fact that defendants had contested the application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff has not disputed their right to apply under Section 34 of the Act. The plaintiff's objection to the application are two fold. Firstly, the dispute raised in the suit did not relate to the partnership at all and second the same were not covered by Arbitration agreement. Clause 18 of the partnership deed is in the following terms : "If and dispute shall arise between the partners in respect of the interpretation of any of the terms and condition of this deed or in respect of other matter or thing whatsoever not herein otherwise provided for it shall be referred to an arbitrator duly appointed by all the partners". 8A. The submission of Shri A. N. Srivastava for the appellant was that expression "or in respect of other matter or thing what so ever" is wide enough to include even those kinds of disputes which may not be otherwise provided for in the agreement. To this extent the submission appears to be acceptable. The question, however, is as to whether any matter concerning a person who admittedly is not a partner would also be covered by this clause ? To us it appears that the words "between the partners" and "by all partners" appearing in clause 18 of the partnership deed are rather significant. In a dispute in which an outsider and the other partner are concerned the arbitrator cannot thrust on the outsider merely because the partners had agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. To us it appears that the words "between the partners" and "by all partners" appearing in clause 18 of the partnership deed are rather significant. In a dispute in which an outsider and the other partner are concerned the arbitrator cannot thrust on the outsider merely because the partners had agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. What is envisaged by clause 18 is that the dispute should be confined as between the partners and should relate to the partnership deed. The present suit is for preventing misuse of the partnership assets by an outsider, may be due to connivance of a partner. The immediate cause for the suit is action of an outside and as such no help can be taken of clause 18 of the partnership deed for seeking reference to arbitration. This dispute, on the face of it, is not confined to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 but also involves defendant No. 2 who is not a privy to the arbitration agreement. 9. Apart from above, the application under Section 34 is also not strictly in consonance with that section. According to it the applicant must aver his readiness and willingness not only at the time of application but also at all relevant times since the initiation of proceedings. This has not been so started in the present case. 10. Much time was devoted by the learned counsel for the parties on the question as to the extent of discretionary power of the court in considering the application under Section 34. In Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pothan Josheph ( AIR 1960 SC 1156 ), Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that power to stay legal proceedings under Section 34 is discretionary and the party making such an application cannot as of right claim stay of those proceedings. 11. The Court further, held that merely because some legal questions were involved or proceedings before the Arbitrator may be prolonged are no ground for refusing the stay. However, if the allegations are as to fraud or dishonesty the discretion of the court should leave in favour of trial before the court rather than before the Arbitrator. 12. Similarly in Anderson Wright Ltd. v. Moran & Co. However, if the allegations are as to fraud or dishonesty the discretion of the court should leave in favour of trial before the court rather than before the Arbitrator. 12. Similarly in Anderson Wright Ltd. v. Moran & Co. ( AIR 1955 SC 53 ), it was held as under : "In order that a stay may be granted under Section 34 it is necessary that the following conditions should be fulfilled : (1) The proceedings must have been commenced by a party to an arbitration agreement against any other party to the agreement; (2) The legal proceeding which is sought to be stayed must be in respect of a matter agreed to be referred; (3) The applicant for stay must be a party to the legal proceedings and he must have taken no step in the proceedings after appearance. It is also necessary that he should satisfy the court not only that he is but also was at the commencement of the proceedings ready and willing to do everything necessary for the proper conduct of the arbitration; and (4) The court must be satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred to an arbitration agreement." 13. In M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur v. M/s. Thakur Das ( AIR 1958 All 522 ), a Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider this matter. He also expressed its view that the discretion of the court must be judicially exercised in judicial way but should be cautions in doing so and in a very rare case stay should be refused much less so in commercial transactions. In N. C. Padmanabhan v. S. Srinivasan ( AIR 1967 Mad 201 (4)). The Court while interpreting the term ready and willing held that the readiness and willingness should cover the entire period before commencement of the suit and thereafter and it should not be left to be implied but there should be unambiguous and specific averment regarding it in the affidavit seeking stay of suit. 14. In the light of the legal position enunciated above, we are of the opinion that the court below was right in holding that there was no good ground for staying the suit. 14. In the light of the legal position enunciated above, we are of the opinion that the court below was right in holding that there was no good ground for staying the suit. We have already held earlier that the dispute was not confined to the partnership or the partners but it also involved the rights of a third party who did not claim through any of the partners. The arbitration clause in the partnership deed, therefore, could not bind the rights of an outsider. 15. In view of what we have stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 16. There will be no order as to costs.