Anita Sumanth, J.

1. The present Application is filed praying for recall of an Order of this Court in O.P. No. 645 of 2016 dated 18.11.2016. The Original Petition had been filed by the Respondent in the present Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes that have, admittedly, arisen between the parties. The Order of the Chief Justice dated 18.11.2016, passed by consent of both parties, states thus:

'The learned Counsel for parties state that instead of a panel of Arbitrators, a Sole Arbitrator be appointed and they jointly suggested the name of Mrs. Justice Chitra Venkatraman, a retired Judge of this Court. The learned Counsel for parties also state that the Arbitration proceedings be held under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre.

2. I, thus, appoint Mrs. Justice Chitra Venkatraman, a retired Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. As requested, the Arbitration proceedings will be conducted under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and the parties will be governed by the Rules of the Centre.

3. The Original Petition is, accordingly, allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.'

2. Pursuant thereto, the parties have been appearing before the learned sole Arbitrator and proceedings are on-going. A Claim Petition was filed by the Claimant, to which a defence was filed. Issues were framed and proceedings for trial were to commence. At that stage, an Application under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short Act), dated 21.6.2017 was filed before the learned Arbitrator seeking the dismissal of the claim raised by the Claimant on the ground that the Petition under Section 11 had been filed belatedly as a result that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and that the claim raised in the Petition was itself barred by limitation.

3. A Counter was filed by the Claimant to the aforesaid Application. After hearing the parties, a detailed Order was passed on 17.7.2017. The learned Arbitrator notes that the challenge to the merits of the claim on the ground of limitation had been framed as one of the issues in the proceedings for arbitration and as such, will be a matter to be decided after considering the evidence let in and the submissions of the parties.

4. With respect to the challenge to the Constitution of the Tribunal, the learned Arbitrator, placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.B.P. & Co v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, 2005 (5) CTC 302 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 450, holds the challenge not maintainable. That apart, she also notices that the Order of Appointment of the Tribunal was by consent of parties and thereafter both parties had continued freely with the proceedings, filing a Claim Petition, a statement of defence, framing issues and participating in the process of trial. It was only at that advanced stage of proceedings that the Petition under Section 16(2) had been filed.

5. Detailed submissions of Mr. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Jenasenan, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. S.S. Rajesh, learned Counsel for the Respondent have been heard and taken into consideration.

6. This Petition praying for a recall has been filed in terms of Order 14, Rule 8 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The first issue to be considered is the power of this Court to recall an Order passed in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act. The Act, per se, does not provide for the recall of an Order passed under Section 11 of the Act. An Order of appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) is final in terms of Section 11(7), extracted below, with n