Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) This special leave to appeal is sought against a discretionary order passed by the Subordinate Judge declining to stay a suit under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act. This order was challenged in appeal and the High Court, after an exhaustive consideration, felt that the exercise of discretion not so improper as to deserve interference.
(2.) Shri Hardev Singh is right to the limited extent that where parties have by contract agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration the courts should as far as possible proceed to give an opportunity for resolution of disputes by arbitration rather than by judicial adjudication. Even so, there is a residual discretion vested in the court to stay or not to stay having regard to the totality of circumstances. One weighty factor obviously is to find out whether the party who invokes the arbitration clause has expressed his readiness to rely on it at the earliest stage. We are not investigating the merits of the mater under Art. 136 but are satisfied that there is no gross error justifying grant of leave. We make it clear however that as a matter of law mere silence on the part of the defendant when a notice under S. 80, C.P.C. is sent to him may not, without more, disentitle him to move under S. 34 and seek stay. In the present case, other circumstances have also been pressed into service by the Court.
(3.) While dismissing the special leave petition for the reasons mentioned above, we would like to emphasize that the deserved defeat of the State in the courts below demonstrates the gross indifference of the administration towards litigative diligence. In the present case a notice under S. 80, C.P.C. was sent. No response. A suit was filed and summons taken out to the Chief Secretary,. Shockingly enough, the summons was refused. An ex parte proceeding was taken when the lethargic Government woke up.;