ORDER
Ramakrishna, J.
1. Though this appeal is set down for orders, by consent of both sides, we heard it finally and disposed of by the following order.
2. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the order passed in O.S. 267/88 dated 9-2-1989 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, rejecting the application for staying the suit. It may be necessary to mention here that by a perusal of Clause 5 of the agreement entered into between the parties in the instant case, it is seen that both parties were agreed for referring the dispute arising out of the partnership firm to the arbitrator. Class (5) reads thus :–
“That in case of dispute amongst the partners or their legal representatives or successors either of the relating to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this deed concerning any matter or touching the partnership before or after the termination of the said partnership business, the same shall be referred to Two Independent persons and their decision is binding or conclusive upon all the partners and legal heirs and representatives or successors as the case may be.”
3. When the respondents filed the suit before the court below, the appellant engaged a Counsel and learned Counsel, having filed vakalat, took time more than once to file written statement, as could be seen from the order-sheet maintained in the instant case.
The case was adjourned for filing written statement on 11-10-88, 7-11-88 and 13-12-88. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 in the appeal relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Rachappa Guru-adappa v. Gurusicidappa Nuraniappa reported in, of the Judgment, it is observed by Supreme Court as follows:–
“From the Order-sheet in this case and as noted by the learned trial Judge, it appears that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought adjournment ‘specifically for filing written statement’and obtained time for such purpose. It was not only the time taken to consider whether written statement should be filed as a defence to the plaint 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. If that is the position, then in our opinion, in view of the principle enunciated hereinbefore, the party has disentitled itself to ask for stay of the said suit. The High Court was, therefore, right in affirming the order of the learned trial Judge. Apart from the same, from the conduct of the petitioner and the narration of the events mentioned hereinbefore, it does not appear that the petitioner was ever keen to have the matter adjudicated by arbitration. If that is the position then the petitioner cannot have any grievance.”
In the instant case, the appellant, by taking time for filing the written statement more than once, lost the right to seek for stay of the suit by his conduct which indicated that he was not interested to have the matter decided by the civil court. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the respondent is right in submitting that the court below was justified in refusing to grant stay. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the court-below and hence we make the following order :
4. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
5. Appeal dismissed.