( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF applicant filed O. S. No. 4 of 1982 against defendants respondents. In the suit defendants respondents filed an application that as there was an arbitration clause in the agreement in between the parties hence suit should be stayed. Under the arbitration agreement Executive Engineer was to be sole arbitrator. In the suit temporary injunction was granted on 01. 03. 1982 staying the recovery against the plaintiff applicant. Plaintiff applicant filed an application in the suit that as Executive Engineer was by designation a party in the suit and as allegations had been made against some officers of the same department hence sole arbitrator should be changed. A. D. J. Karwi (District Banda) through order dated 19. 03. 1985 refused to change the arbitrator. Through the said order earlier interim injunction order granted on 01. 03. 1982 was also vacated. Thereafter on 01. 04. 1985 following order was passed:- "the plaintiff does not want to prosecute the case, hence the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution". ( 3 ) ABOVE two orders have been challenged through this revision. ( 4 ) MERELY because the Executive Engineer was made party in the suit, it was no ground to change the arbitrator who was to be Executive Engineer by designation. In any case all those officers against whom allegations have been made by the plaintiff applicant in the plaint must have either been transferred or retired by now. ( 5 ) AS far as order dated 01. 04. 1985 dismissing the suit for want of prosecution is concerned the proper remedy for the plaintiff applicant is to file an application before the Court concerned for recall of the said order. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, revision is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file application for recall of order dated 01. 04. 1985 before the courts below. If such an application is filed within a month from today the same shall be treated to be within time. ( 7 ) IN this revision on 17. 05. 1985 following interim order was passed:-"until further order respondents are restrained from recovering the amount sought to be realised from the applicant provided he has already furnished security as directed by the trial court". ( 7 ) IN this revision on 17. 05. 1985 following interim order was passed:-"until further order respondents are restrained from recovering the amount sought to be realised from the applicant provided he has already furnished security as directed by the trial court". ( 8 ) THE said interim order in the first instance shall remain in operation for one month from today. In case recall/restoration application is filed within a month then said order shall remain in operation until decision of restoration application. If the restoration application is allowed then the above interim order dated 17. 05. 1985 shall remain in operation until disposal of the suit. Revision is, accordingly, disposed of. .