HOWRAH OIL MILLS CALCUTTA Vs. B KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, to revise the appellate order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad, affirming an order of the 3rd Judge of the same Court, refusing an application for stay under section 34, Arbitration Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this revision, it is necessary to state the material facts. On 22nd of November, 1954 the respondent filed O.S. No. 159/1 of 1954, on the file of the 3rd Judge, City Civil Court, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,064-11-9 as compensation for the loss sustained by him on account of a breach of contract committed by the defendant. The exact date on which the suit summons was served on the defendant is not clear from the record but it is not disputed that along with the suit summons a copy of the plaint was served on the defendant. On the 29th of July, 1955, counsel for the defendant appeared before Court and applied for an adjournment for filing the written statement. On this application the suit was adjourned to the 24th of August, 1955. On the adjourned date of the defendant's advocate again appeared and request for time for filing the written statement. This request was granted and the suit was adjourned. On the 21st of September,1955, the defendant filed the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the proceedings. The trial Judge refused to grant the stay on appeal his order was confirmed.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirements of section 34, Arbitration Act, are satisfied and that, therefore, the Courts below were in error in rejecting the application for stay. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act reads: