K. S. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) FOLLOWING issue No. 3 was ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue by the order dated November 26, 1996:- "whether this suit is barred by Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ?" ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed suit for recovery of Rs. 6,01,828. 00 against the defendants, inter alia, alleging that telephone No. 6830236 was installed at premises No. 1-E/189, Lajpat Nagar, on November 4, 1991 and on account of non-payment of outstanding bills by defendants 1 and 2, subscribers, it was disconnected on May 4, 1993. Rs. 600. 00 under the bill dated April 1, 1992, Rs. 4,61,675. 00 under the bill dated March 6, 1993, Rs. 8. 00 under the bill dated June 1, 1993 and Rs. 18,855. 00 under the bill dated August 1, 1993, totalling Rs. 4,81,138. 00 were outstanding against defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff issued notice to the defendants on December 30, 1993 for making payment of the outstanding bills and in response thereto after acknowledging the liability. Nagesh Chhadha, defendant No. 3, offered to pay the outstanding amount on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 in instalments of Rs. 50,000. 00 per month by the letter dated January 4, 1993 and a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 was also paid towards the instalment. Plaintiff thereafter issued revised bills for Rs. 4,10,808. 00 and Rs. 17,734. 00 and a bill for Rs. 1,840. 00 towards the cost of instalment and directory charges after adjusting the security deposit etc. Defendants have failed to pay the amounts of these bills. It is further alleged that the defendants filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act being Suit No. 74/94 against the plaintiff before the District Judge but by the order dated August 16, 1994 that petition was dismissed in default of appearance. ( 3 ) IN their joint written statement defendants 1 and 2 have taken the preliminary objection that correctness of the bills raised by the plaintiff was assailed by them by making a representation dated March 16, 1993 and the dispute between the parties can only be adjudicated upon by a arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act. Present suit is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. Present suit is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It was on this plea that aforesaid issue No. 3 was framed by the court. ( 4 ) OBVIOUSLY, controversy between the parties centres around the fact if a dispute falling under the purview of Section 7b (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act was pending between the parties on the date the suit was filed. In support of the plea REFERRED TO to above taken in the written statement, my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the defendants to the representation dated March 16, 1993 and the bills in respect of telephone No. 6830236 of the billing cycle periods January 1, 1991, March 1, 1991, April 1, 1991, June 1, 1991, August 1, 1991, October 1, 1991, December 1, 1991, February 1, 1992, March 18, 1992, April 1, 1992, April 19, 1992, June 1, 1992, August 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, November 9, 1992, February 1, 1993 and April 1, 1993 placed on the file. On the contrary, in support of the case that the defendants acknowledged the liability to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 5 lakhs and there was no dispute falling under the purview of aforesaid Section 7b (1), my attention was invited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendant s letter dated January 4, 1994 placed on record in addition to the fact that the defendants filed petition No. 74/94 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act before the District Judge, Delhi, but they got the same dismissed in default on August 16, 1994 thereby admitting the liability for payment of the outstanding dues. Reliance was also placed on a decision in The State of U. P. and Another Vs. M/s. Janki Saran Kailash Chandra and Another, AIR 1973 SC 2071 . ( 5 ) OMITTING the immaterial portion aforesaid representation dated March 16, 1993, reads thus:- "there seems to be a grand mistake in the metering system of the phone No. 6830236. ( 6 ) SINCE I had been to the billing Department several time to collect the bill for the abovementioned bill but previously I was given a bill in the name of Sh. V. K. Gupta on August 12, 1992 for Rs. 330. 00. ( 7 ) SINCE it was not my bill, I told the authorities about it. ( 6 ) SINCE I had been to the billing Department several time to collect the bill for the abovementioned bill but previously I was given a bill in the name of Sh. V. K. Gupta on August 12, 1992 for Rs. 330. 00. ( 7 ) SINCE it was not my bill, I told the authorities about it. Secondly, next time I went for a bill to your office and was handed over a bill for Rs. 4,13,824. 00 which was inclusive of rent upto December 31, 1992, it was also a hand made bill. At this time I requested the billing officer to give me a computerised bill since the bill amount was very much excessive than the phone I used. ( 8 ) THIRDLY, a bill was handed over to me on March 12, 1993, for the sum of Rs. 4,61. 675. 00 which was inclusive of rent upto April 30, 1993 and the bill again was a hand made and not computerised one. ( 9 ) THEN on January 25, 1993, the STD on the phone in question was disconnected and no reason for disconnection was given nor any notice was given to me. ( 10 ) NOW you can just imagine that a person with a small business at his hand cannot make so many calls during this period. So, it seems that there is something wrong with the metering system of the abovementioned phone. ( 11 ) I would once again request you to kindly look into the matter and enquire about the whole matter and please correct the bill and save me. " ( 12 ) AFOREMENTIONED telephone bills numbering 18 filed by the defendants which cover a part of the suit amount although allegedly relate to the defendants telephone No. 6830236 but had been raised in the name of one V. K. Gupta. How these bills came to be issued in the name of V. K. Gupta shrouds in mystery. On a bare reading of the said representation dated March 16, 1993, it is manifest that defendant No. 2 had claimed that there was mistake in the bills issued to him and the amounts shown therein were not payable by him. How these bills came to be issued in the name of V. K. Gupta shrouds in mystery. On a bare reading of the said representation dated March 16, 1993, it is manifest that defendant No. 2 had claimed that there was mistake in the bills issued to him and the amounts shown therein were not payable by him. It is pertinent to state that the case of the plaintiff is that in a subsequent letter dated January 4, 1994 defendants acknowledged their liability to pay the outstanding dues in bimonthly instalments of Rs. 50,000. 00 each. This letter was sent by defendant No. 3 with reference to the plaintiff s notice No. GM (S)/tr/legal/s-X dated December 30, 1993, demanding outstanding dues of Rs. 4,80,530. 00 and the relevant portion of the letter runs as under: "with reference to your letter cited above, I request your honour to kindly arrange to supply the I. S. D. /s. T. D. details for the period 4/11/91 to 15/1/93 and detail of bill dt: 18/93 for Rs. 18, 855. 00. So that I may be able to know the calls made by us and to verify the facts that the call was actually made by us. My father is out of station. My export business is totally closed since 1992. My financial position is not so good. I am not in a position to make the payment in lumpsum. I request you to kindly make me ten instalments of bimonthly Rs. 50,000. 00 to make the payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 5 lakhs. " ( 13 ) INDISPUTABLY defendant No. 3 is the son of defendant No. 2 who happens to be the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Royal Enterprises (defendant No. 1), subscriber of aforesaid telephone No. 6830236. As is evident on a combined reading of paras 1 and 3 extracted above of the letter, alleged acknowledgement for payment of the outstanding dues made by defendant No. 3 was not a definite acknowledgement of the liability. Moreover, plaintiff cannot legally bind defendants 1 and 2 with the alleged acknowledgement made by defendant No. 3 who was admittedly not a subscriber of the telephone. Moreover, plaintiff cannot legally bind defendants 1 and 2 with the alleged acknowledgement made by defendant No. 3 who was admittedly not a subscriber of the telephone. Further, act of filing of petition No. 74/94 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act which was later on dismissed in default of appearance on August 16, 1994, cannot operate as an admission of their liability to pay the suit amount by defendants 1 and 2, as claimed. ( 14 ) AS observed earlier, since defendants 1 and 2 raised dispute relating to payment of arrears of bills that could have been adjudicated upon by making reference to arbitration under Section 7b (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the present suit is, thus, not legally maintainable. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Orissa High Court in Smt. Makhani Devi Banka Vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 Ori 11 . Decision in M/s. Janki Saran Kailash Chandra s case (supra) was rendered with reference to expression "steps in the proceedings" used in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and it has no relevance in this case. ( 15 ) IT was also urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that as defendants 1 and 2 did not file application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit, they will be deemed to have waived their right, if any, for reference to the arbitrator under Section 7b (1) of the Telegraph Act. In Nityananda Sahu Vs. Post-master General, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar and Others, AIR 1977 Ori 48 , identical point came to be considered and it was held that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is not applicable to the statutory arbitration contemplated under Section 7b of the Telegraph Act. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, the issue is answered in affirmative. ( 17 ) SUIT is, therefore, dismissed being not maintainable. No order as to costs.