S.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) The defendant appellants filed this appeal against the order of the trial court refusing to stay further proceedings in the application for permission to sue as a pauper under Sec. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The circumstances, which have given rise to this appeal, are as follows:-
(2.) The plaintiff respondents filed an application for permission to sue as pauper on the 2nd of November, 1953. The relief claimed in the application was that a decree for Rs. 36,285/- should be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants. Notices of the application for permission to sue as a pauper were issued to the defendants requiring them to file objections against the application. On 30th January, 1954 Sri Madan Mohan Bhatnagar Vakil filed an application praying for time to file objections. A telegram from the defendants was also attached along with the application. The telegram requested the aforesaid Vakil to apply for adjournment to the court. The application was, however, filed without a vakalatnama from the defendants, and since the application was not properly presented, the trial court re-fused to adjourn the case and passed an order that the case should proceed ex-parte against the defendants. On 22nd February, 1954, the defendants filed an application supported by an affidavit praying for the setting aside of the ex-parte order and filing of an objection to the application for permission to sue as a pauper.
(3.) The trial court set aside the ex-parte order on that date and fixed the 30th of March, 1954 for filing an objection by the defendants. On 30th March, 1954 the defendants filed an objection under Sec. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It was stated in that application that the plaintiffs and the defendants had entered into an agreement in respect of the subject matter of the pauper application and clause 23 of that agreement required the parties to settle their disputes by arbitration. It was said that since the dispute in the case arose out of the aforesaid agreement, the court could not proceed with the matter because the defendants were always ready and willing to submit the dispute to arbitration and Sec. 34 of the aforesaid Act, in such circumstances, required that the court should stay further proceedings until the dispute was decided by the arbitrators.;