JUDGMENT Beg, J. - This is a plaintiff's revision application. It arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. 2. It appears that during the pendency of the suit in the trial court the parties entered into an agreement by virtue of which they appointed an arbitrator who was authorised to give an award in respect of the disputes that had arisen between the parties. The matter was accordingly referred to the arbitrator who pronounced the award. The plaintiff thereafter applied to the court praying that a decree be passed in terms of the award given by the arbitrator. This was objected to by defendant not respondent. 3. Reliance on behalf of the defendant no. 1 was placed on Section 47 of the Arbitration Act which lays down as follows: - "Subject to the provisions of Section 16 and save in so far as is otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all arbitration and to all proceedings there under: Provided 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." 4. The proviso appended to the above section requires that before the court can take into consideration an award given by an arbitrator, all the parties interested in it must consent to the award being given effect to. As a result of the above provision of law where a dispute with respect to a matter is pending in a court of law and the parties refer the said matter to an arbitrator who gives an award in respect thereof without the intervention of the court, it is not open to the court to accord recognition to the said award unless all the parties interested therein give their consent to it. vide Lala Moradhwaj v. Lain Bahadur Das, 1955 A.L.J.R. 96, Lakshmi Narain v. Ram Babu, A.I.R. 1953 Allahabad 9, and Abdul Rahman Sahib v. Md. Siddiq, AIR 1953 Madras 781,. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party also took a preliminary objection that this revision was not maintainable. As, however, I am dismissing the application on merits, it is not necessary for me to go into this matter. 6. Siddiq, AIR 1953 Madras 781,. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party also took a preliminary objection that this revision was not maintainable. As, however, I am dismissing the application on merits, it is not necessary for me to go into this matter. 6. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.