S. N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant Mr. D. P. Joshi for recalling of order dated 11. 09. 2007 passed by this Court on his application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissing his application as having become infructuous in view of compromise between the parties. ( 2 ) THE applicant in the instant application has pleaded that no compromise was arrived at between the parties and the order dismissing the petition as having become infructuous passed on 11. 09. 2007 need to be recalled. It is stated that on 22. 08. 2006 also the Court was told by the respondent that the matter has been compromised between the parties. According to the applicant, the respondent had misled the Court regarding compromise on 22. 08. 2006. On 23. 11. 2006 when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, following orders were passed:-"it is stated that no settlement has taken place between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply to the petition. Let reply be filed within four weeks, rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List on 15th March, 2007. Interim orders to continue. " ( 3 ) AFTER 23. 11. 2006, the case was adjourned for 15. 03. 2007, 16. 03. 2007, 29. 05. 2007 and lastly for 11. 09. 2007. It is further stated that on 11. 09. 2007, the counsel Mr. Ajay Bansal had to appear before the Court on behalf of the applicant but he could not appear on account of the fact that he had to go out of Delhi for some personal work and therefore he requested one of the junior counsel namely Mr. Ashish Garg who had just joined the profession to appear and seek a date. It is contended that Mr. Ashish Garg had never appeared in this matter earlier and was not aware about the facts of the case. On 11. 09. 2007, the counsel for the respondent again misled the Court taking advantage of the situation of non appearance of the leading counsel Mr. Ajay Bansal and made a statement that the matter was compromised and the junior counsel appearing for the applicant could not understand the situation and remain silent because of which this Court recorded in its order dated 11. 09. Ajay Bansal and made a statement that the matter was compromised and the junior counsel appearing for the applicant could not understand the situation and remain silent because of which this Court recorded in its order dated 11. 09. 2007 that the petition has become infructuous in view of compromise between the parties. ( 4 ) THE thrust of the applicant's case is that no compromise was in fact arrived at between the parties and the Court was misled on behalf of the respondent regarding the purported compromise taking advantage of absence of the main counsel of the applicant on that day. Hence the applicant has prayed for recalling of order passed by this Court on 11. 09. 2007. ( 5 ) THIS application is opposed on behalf of the respondent on the ground that a compromise was arrived at between the parties which was reduced into writing on 15. 06. 2006. The respondent has placed copy of compromise agreement dated 15. 06. 2006 on record to show that the applicant had settled the matter with the respondent and had received Rs. 6. 5 lacs as compromise amount. The contention of Mr. Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the respondent was that after compromise as mentioned in the compromise agreement dated 15. 06. 2006 no dispute was left to be arbitrated by the Arbitrator in terms of para 8 contained in the collaboration Agreement dated 07. 08. 2004 entered into between the parties in respect of the suit property bearing No. 142, Hargovind Enclave, Delhi-110092. Mr. Aggarwal has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in M/s Saraswati industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. M/s Apollo Tyres Limited, ILR (1986) I Delhi 382 in support of his arguments that when the parties to the Collaboration Agreement dated 07. 08. 2004 which contained an arbitration clause had given a go bye to the said agreement by arriving at a mutual settlement, the applicant cannot revert to the original arbitration agreement contained in the Collaboration Agreement referred above. In M/s Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. 's case (Supra), it was held by this Court as under:- "1. 08. 2004 which contained an arbitration clause had given a go bye to the said agreement by arriving at a mutual settlement, the applicant cannot revert to the original arbitration agreement contained in the Collaboration Agreement referred above. In M/s Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. 's case (Supra), it was held by this Court as under:- "1. There could be no doubt that where the parties agreed to refer their disputes and differences to arbitration but subsequently ignoring the arbitration agreement, the parties mutually through their representatives agree and arrive at a settlement and that settlement is acted upon as well in part, then only the subsequently arrived at settlement would govern the relations of the parties thereafter and the parties cannot be permitted to ignore such a settlement so as to have recourse to the original arbitration agreement. In these circumstances, the arbitration agreement stands discharges, abrogated and abandoned and the same becomes infructuous and cannot be revived by any of the parties. The law requires a subsisting arbitration agreement and not an arbitration agreement which has been abrogated, abandoned or waived. In view thereof, an abrogated, abandoned and waived arbitration agreement would not be of any consequence so as to help the defendant. ( 6 ) IN the above referred case, there was no dispute regarding mutual settlement arrived at between the parties after they had entered into an arbitration agreement. However, in the present case the applicant is seriously disputing the genuineness of the compromise which is evident from the order passed by this Court on 23. 11. 2006 noting that no compromise was arrived at between the parties till that date. The respondent/non-applicant is relying upon the purported compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties on 15. 06. 2006 i. e. prior to the date of 23. 11. 2006 when it was recorded that no settlement had taken place between the parties. In case the settlement as alleged had taken place then why the respondent took time on 23. 11. 2006 for filing of reply to the applicant's main application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. This strengthen the plea of the applicant that the main application under Section 9 was got dismissed as having become infructuous by the respondent by misleading the Court taking advantage of the absence of the main counsel for the applicant. 2006 for filing of reply to the applicant's main application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. This strengthen the plea of the applicant that the main application under Section 9 was got dismissed as having become infructuous by the respondent by misleading the Court taking advantage of the absence of the main counsel for the applicant. Since in the present case, the genuineness of the compromise has been disputed, it cannot be said that the parties had given a go bye to the arbitration agreement contained in the Collaboration Agreement dated 07. 08. 2004 entered into between the applicant and the respondent. ( 7 ) IN view of the above the order dated 11. 09. 2007 is recalled and the main application of the applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 is restored for hearing on merits. ( 8 ) SINCE on the date the applicant's main application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed, there was an interim order operating against the respondent by which she was restrained from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property, the said order has also to be restored. The interim order dated 02. 03. 2006 which was operative till 11. 09. 2007 is therefore revived. The instant application stands disposed of.