This petition of revision is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, L. A. D. dated 24th March 1951, by which the order of the Munsiff of Gauhati destining to record what was described as a compromise, under O, 23 R. 3, Civil P. C., was affirmed. [2] On 17th January 1950, the parties were pee-sent in Court. Plaintiffs were ready with witnesses. The defendant petitioned to the Court that the matter had been compromised and requested that the compromise or the adjustment be recor­ded under O. 23, R. 3. He relied on an agreement of reference Exh. I and an award (Exh. II). His case was that in pursuance of the agreement of reference the Panchayat gave an award Exh. II. This award he contended, amounted to an adjustment which could be recorded under O. 23, R. 3, The plaintiffs denied having entered into any agreement of reference and further pleaded that they had no knowledge of the award. They further urged, that the so-called adjustment embodied in EX. II, could not be treated as a compro­mise or adjustment for purposes of O. 23, R. 3 without their consent, in any case. [3] The Courts below have come to the conclu­sion that the award was not consented to by the plaintiffs. They have also found that the signa­tures of the plaintiffs on the agreement of refer­ence had been obtained either by pressure or by some promise which remained unfulfilled. The finding arrived at in the Courts below is that even as regards the agreement there was no consensus of will. In consequence the alleged adjustment has not been recorded. [4] In this revision petition, it has first been urged on behalf of the defendant that Exh. II, the document on which the defendant relied, was an award of the arbitrators duly made in pursu­ance of an agreement entered into by the plain­tiffs and being an award it could be recorded as an adjustment under O. 23, R. 3. [5] This contention cannot prevail in view of the express provision contained in S. 47, Arbitra­tion Act. The proviso to S. 47, Arbitration Act, clearly provides that "an arbitration award otherwise obtained may with the consent of all the parties interested be taken into consi­deration as a compromise or adjustment of a suit by any Court before which the suit is pending." The language of the proviso is clear. The proviso to S. 47, Arbitration Act, clearly provides that "an arbitration award otherwise obtained may with the consent of all the parties interested be taken into consi­deration as a compromise or adjustment of a suit by any Court before which the suit is pending." The language of the proviso is clear. In order that an award may be used as an adjustment, it is necessary that all the parties should agree to it when the decision has been given by arbitrators in proceedings not covered by the Arbitration Act. It is conceded in this case that the document, Exh. II, is an award. It is further clear that after the award the plaintiffs have not con­sented to it. Under S. 47, therefore, the award cannot be recorded as an adjustment. The legal position appears to be undoubted and is also fully supported by authority. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court laid down in Indramoni Mohapatra v. Nilamoni MoJiarana, A. I. R. (37) 1950 Orissa 1B9 that "A reference to arbitration of the subject matter of a pending action without an order of Court is within the contemplation of the proviso to S. 47 of the Act. Such a reference involves ouster or, at any rate, suspension for the time being of the Court's jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the suit and is opposed to public policy and as a contract it is unenforceable even under the general law of contract. Further, an award otherwise obtained within the meaning of the proviso to S. 47, cannot ipso facto work as an accord and satisfaction of the suit. It must be acquiesced in or agreed to be treated as such after it is made." In Nazir Mohamed v. Kasturchand Gcmaji Co., A. I. R. (38) 1951 Mys. 57, the same view has been taken of the proviso (to S. 47). The contrary view taken in Arumuga Mudaliar v. Balosubrumania Mudaliar, A. I. B (32) 1945 Mad. 294 has not been relied upon by Mr. Ghose. [6] I have no doubt that in view of the express provisions contained in 8. 47, the award cannot, be recorded as an adjustment under O. 23, R. 3, 1 Civil P. C. even if the agreement of reference was duly signed by the plaintiffs with full know­ledge of its contents. The order of the Courts below, therefore, must stand. [6] I have no doubt that in view of the express provisions contained in 8. 47, the award cannot, be recorded as an adjustment under O. 23, R. 3, 1 Civil P. C. even if the agreement of reference was duly signed by the plaintiffs with full know­ledge of its contents. The order of the Courts below, therefore, must stand. The petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 32. Revision dismissed.