ORDER S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this revision rejection of the petition under O. 23, R. 3, C.P.C., filed by the defendant 1 to record compromise on the basis of an award made during pendency of the suit is assailed by defendant 1. 2. Suit is for partition. Plaintiff as daughter of one of the deceased co-sharers filed the suit for partition. Defendant 1, brother of the deceased father of the plaintiffs contested the suit alleging that his brother die in the year 1934 and accordingly, plaintiffs have no right to succeed to the joint family property in the hands of their father. When evidence in the suit was recorded, plaintiffs filed an application on 18-8-1983 for recording adjustment of the suit on the basis of an award filed that day in court by one of the Arbitrators Subudhi Swain. Defendant 1 objected to the petition assailing the award itself and claiming that the same being without permission of the court is hit under Ss. 21 to 29, Arbitration Act. It was stated that the petition having been filed by defendant I alone and not the plaintiffs is a unilateral petition not coming within the purview of O. 23, R. 3, C.P.C. Trial Court on consideration of the same having rejected the petition, this civil revision has been filed. 3. Mr. P. Palit, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon S. 47, proviso of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and submitted that the order suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and accordingly is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. B.B. Rath, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties, submitted that proviso to S. 47 requires consent of the plaintiffs which being absent, the award cannot be taken into consideration. In order to appreciate contention of both the parties, S. 47 is to be kept in mind which reads as follows :- "47. Act to apply to all arbitration :- Subject to the provisions of S. 46, and save insofar as is otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force the provisions of this Act shall apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings thereunder : Provided that an arbitration award otherwise obtained may with the consent of all the the parties interested be taken into consideration as a compromise of adjustment of a suit by any court before which the suit is pending." 5. The language of the proviso to S. 47 extracted above, makes it clear that consent should be given by the parties for enabling the court to consider the award as a compromise or adjustment of the suit. While Mr. Palit relying upon the decision reported in (Malek Bavaji Amarkhan v. Heirs of deed. Amirkhan Salimkhan ( AIR 1978 Guj. 42 ), submitted that the very fact that plaintiffs consented to arbitration on the basis of which reference was made, and award was given and absence of denial in the objection that they have no consent amounts to consent by the plaintiffs for consideration of the award. This would be clear from the objection made by the plaintiffs to the merits of the award which can only be gone into if the validity of the award is taken into consideration for the purpose of compromise. Mr. Rath on the other hand relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court reported in (Indramoni Mohapatra v. Nilamoni Mohapatra) (ILR (1950) Cut 1 : (AIR 1950 Orissa 169)), where this court held that the consent satisfied in the proviso to S. 47 of the Act is a post-award consent given at the time when the matter is to be taken into consideration and not an antecedent consent given at the time of submission to arbitration; and after the award all the interested parties should ask the court to consider it as an adjustment of the suit. Thereupon, the court is to proceed under O. 23, R. 3, C.P.C. and pass a decree thereon. 6. In view of the observations of this court, decision reported in (supra) can have no persuasive value. 7. On the facts of this case also, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not consented to the consideration of the award. The very fact that they raised objection to the award itself by stating that it is invalid leads to an inference that they did not agree to give their consent for recording compromise or adjustment of the suit by the court on the basis of such award. 8. In the result, civil revision has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *-*-*-*-*