D.P.WADHWA, J. (1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-9-1989 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the petition of the appellant filed before the sub-court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. (2) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking reference of certain disputes to arbitration alleging that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. It is an admitted case that the arbitration clause in the contract was deleted by consent of both the parties. Perhaps on this very ground the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable. However, in the written statement filed by the respondents it was submitted that in case the Court finds that there was an arbitration agreement the dispute may be referred to the Chief Engineer (Arbitration), Trivandrum. This submission of the respondents appears to be rather strange in view of the fact that the arbitration agreement was cancelled by the consent of the parties. After the judgment dated 27-3-1987 by the sub- court holding in favour of the appellant and appointing the arbitrator, arbitration proceedings started. Notice was issued to the respondents. They filed their statement of defence and at the same time alleged that they reserved their right to file the appeal in the High Court against the judgment of the sub-court dated 27-3-1987. The award came to be given on 30-9-1988. The appellant filed the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for making the award the rule of the court. However, in the meanwhile on 6-10- 1988 the respondents filed the appeal in the High Court against the judgment of the sub-court referring the dispute to arbitration. This appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment and the judgment of the sub-court was set aside. (3) NOT much arguments are needed for us to hold that when there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable. We are, therefore, perforce to dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. (4) IT was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute is of the year 1982 and now that the appellant has to file the suit for recovery of the amount, a direction may be issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. There will be no order as to costs. (4) IT was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute is of the year 1982 and now that the appellant has to file the suit for recovery of the amount, a direction may be issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. If and when such suit is filed, we hope it shall be disposed of expeditiously.