Judgment : The petitioner herein instituted O.S.No.557 of 1989 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Madurai, against M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the present respondent seeking declaration that the termination of dealership agreement between them as per communication dated 17. 1989 is invalid and for permanent injunction restraining the Petroleum Corporation Limited from discontinuing the supply of Kerosene to him and for other reliefs. He also filed I.A.No.465 of 1989 on the same day for an interim injunction order. On 10. 1989 counsel for defendant entered appearance and filed vakalat. The suit was adjourned for filing of written statement on two occasions thereafter viz. 11. 1989 and 112. 1989. In the meanwhile, on 7th November, 1989 the defendant came forward with I.A.No.1 of 1990 under Sec.34 of the Indian Arbitration Act to stay all proceedings in O.S.No.557 of 1989 and for appointment of an arbitrator as contemplated under Clause 29 of the dealership agreement dated 19. 1985 between the parties. When the suit came up for hearing on 2. 1990 and on subsequent hearing dates it was adjourned with an endorsement "I.A.No.l of 1990 is pending. Call on". The plaintiff/petitioner herein contested that application and in his order dated 4. 1992 learned Sub Judge allowed the application with cost. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal to the District Court, Madurai in C.M.A.No.32 of 1992. The appeal was dismissed on 22. 1993. The orders of the court below are challenged in the present civil revision petition. 2.Thiru V.Venkatasalam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the defendant has entered appearance and taken time to file a written statement in the suit, he has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act and hence courts below have erred in allowing I.A.No. 1 of 1990 and referring the dispute to arbitration. 2.Thiru V.Venkatasalam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the defendant has entered appearance and taken time to file a written statement in the suit, he has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act and hence courts below have erred in allowing I.A.No. 1 of 1990 and referring the dispute to arbitration. In order to appreciate his contention, the provisions of Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act are extracted hereunder: "Where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under his commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the agreement or any person claiming under him in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings; and if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that the applicant was, at the time when the proceedings were commenced, and still remains, ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration, such authority may make an order staying the proceedings". In this case, there is no dispute that the application under Scc.34 has been filed before the filing of the written statement. In addition, as per the terms of the above section the defendant should not have taken any other steps in the proceedings in order to avail the benefit conferred by the section. A close scrutiny of the records herein reveals that the counsel for defendant has entered appearance in the suit on 10. 1989, and filed vakalat. The suit was adjourned to 11. 1989 for filing of written statement, I.A.No.l of 1990 has been verified on 11. 1989 by the defendant and his counsel. We are unable to find out from this application on what exact date it was filed in court. In the court seal we are able to decipher only the words "Nov. 1989". However, from the return endorsement on the docket we can safely conclude that the application was available in court on 11. 1989. But it does not appear that the Presiding Officer has been apprised of the defendant coming forward with an application under Sec.34. In the court seal we are able to decipher only the words "Nov. 1989". However, from the return endorsement on the docket we can safely conclude that the application was available in court on 11. 1989. But it does not appear that the Presiding Officer has been apprised of the defendant coming forward with an application under Sec.34. Evidently for this reason the notes paper or 11. 1989 simply reads "written statement time extended 112. 1989". On the next hearing date the suit has again been adjourned to 2. 1990 for filing of written statement. Only on 2. 1990 the court takes note of the pendency of I.A.No.l of 1990 and adjourned the suit to be called on 3. 1990. After the returns were complied with the application under Sec.34 was numbered as I.A.No.l of 1990 on 1. 1990. So the short point for determination is whether the application by the defendant should be construed as one made before "taking any other steps in the proceedings" within the meaning of Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act. 3. In lndian Oil Corporation Limited v. Mainsukdas Baldeodas, (1982)1 M.L.J. 401 :1981 T.L.N.J. 521: (1982)95 L.W. 187 : A.I.R. 1982 Mad. 323. a Division Bench of this Court has held that if a person had merely entered appearance and asked for time for filing a written statement, it is admitted and also covered by out authorities that he would be deemed to have taken a step in the proceeding and, therefore, no application for staying the suit could be filed. 4. In Sreenivasalu v. Parthasarathi, A.I.R. 1980 Mad. 194, a single Judge of this Court has held: "Where the defendant though fully aware of his right to invoke the provisions of Sec.34 for resolving the dispute by reference to arbitration, chose to instruct his counsel to appear before the court and pray for time for filing the written statement which was also granted by the court, the defendant’s act would be a clear manifestation of a desire on his part to take almost the first step in the suit indicating that he intended to go on with the suit and not to resort to the arbitration provision and submit to the jurisdiction of the court by participating in the proceeding, which would disentitle him from invoking the procedure under Sec.34, for seeking a stay of the further proceedings in the suit". 5. 5. In Rachappa v. Gurusidappa, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 635: (1989)4 J.T. 497 the Supreme Court has pointed out that where the counsel appearing for the party to the suit had sought adjournment "specifically for filing written statement" and obtained lime for more than one occasion for such purpose, subsequent application for stay of suit would not be maintainable. !i was not only the time taken to consider whether written statement should be filed as a defence to the plain! to enter into an arena of controversy, but it was time taken to have the matter decided by the suit. The party evinced an intention to have the matter adjudicated by the court. 6. Placing reliance on the decisions referred to above, learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the fact that the respondent/defendant had taken time to file the written statement in the suit itself would disentitle him from invoking the provisions of Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act. Whereas Thiru R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel for the respondent argued that what is important is the intention on the part of the defendant to waive the benefit of the arbitration agreement and submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. In Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1302: (1982)2 S.C.C. 499 , it has been held that the expression "taking any other steps in the proceedings" occurring in Sec.34 mast be construed ejusdern generis with the specific provision just preceding to bring out the ambit of the latter. Therefore, unless the step alleged to have been taken by the party seeking to enforce arbitration agreement is such as would display an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and acquiesce in the method of resolution of dispute adopted by the other party, namely, filing of the suit and thereby indicate that it has abandoned its right under the arbitration agreement to get the dispute resolved by arbitration, any other step would not disentitle the party from seeking relief under Sec.34. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the expression “taking any other steps in the proceedings” must be given a narrow meaning in that the step must be taken in the main proceeding of the suit and it must be such step as would clearly and unambiguously manifest the intention to waive the benefit of the arbitration agreement and to acquiesce in the proceedings. Each and every step taken in the proceedings cannot come in the way of the party seeking to enforce the arbitration agreement by obtaining stay of proceedings. 7. Again Sadhu Singh Ghuman v. Food Corporation of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 893, lays down that the expression “a step in the proceeding” which would disentitle the defendant from invoking Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act is not every step taken by him in the suit. It should be a step to abandon the right to have the suit stayed. It should be a step in aid of the progress of the suit. The step must have been consciously taken with a view to submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy on the merits. 8. In Kokkah Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Ravankar Constn, (1991)14 A.I.A.L.R. 147, a single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held that mere taking of three adjournments for filing written statement does not clearly indicate an unequivocal intention of the defendant to proceed with the suit. 9. If we examine the facts herein in the light of the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to above, we cannot spell out any manifest display of an unequivocal intention on the part of the. respondent/defendant to proceed with the suit and to give up the right to have the matter disposed of by arbitration. The adjournment of the case for filing of written statement by the Presiding Officer oblivious of the filing of the application under Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act cannot mean that the defendant has failed to act before “taking any other steps in the proceeding:.”. As pointed out by a Division Bench of this Court in Yeswant v. Usha Kumar, A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 272, not all steps taken to contest the interlocutory application will disentitle the defendant from invoking the right under Sec.34, but the step taken in the suit must be such as would display an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and would abandon the benefit of the arbitration agreement. Since the application in I.A.No.l of 1990 has been verified on 11. 1989 and the same has been returned from Court on 11. 1989 on which date the suit came up for hearing after the counsel for defendant entered appearance, we can safely hold that the respondent has satisfied the requirements of Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act. Since the application in I.A.No.l of 1990 has been verified on 11. 1989 and the same has been returned from Court on 11. 1989 on which date the suit came up for hearing after the counsel for defendant entered appearance, we can safely hold that the respondent has satisfied the requirements of Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act. In my view, the fact that on 10. 1989 the court has passed an order ‘written statement -7-11 after recording that vakalat has been filed by itself does not exhibit any unequivocal intention on the part of the defendant/respondent to proceed with the suit. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner next submitted that since the present respondent has taken time in I. ANo.465 of 1989 to file counter, it must be held that he has taken steps in the proceedings which disentitles him to invoke the benefit of Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act. But in Ml S.Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. M/s.Poppat Jamal and Son, (1981)1 LAV. 311, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that mere appearance at initial stage of the injunction petition for giving an undertaking of some sort is not a ground to hold that it is a positive step in the proceeding. So every step taken by the defendant in the suit would not invariably lead to the conclusion that he has given up his right to take proceedings under Sec.34 of the Arbitration Act. 11. Yeswant v. Usha Kumar, A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 272, referred to above is also an authority for the position that unless the discretionary power vested in the trial court under Sec.34 is found to be used arbitrarily or perversely the appellate authority will not interfere with such a discretionary order passed by the trial court. And I find no infirmity in the orders of the court below. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.