IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.571 of 2009 1. Om Prakash Sao 2. Prakash Sao alias Jai Prakash Sao 3. Rajesh Kumar Sao alias Rajesh Kumar, all are sons of late Ganesh Sao, residents of Village- Naya Bazar, Goshala Gali Lakhisarai, P.S. Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai --- Defendants --- Appellants--- Petitioners. Versus 1. Rajendra Vishwakarma, son of Basant Mistri, resident of Purani Bazar, Loharpatti, P.S. Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai ---- Plaintiff--- Respondent --- Opposite party Ist Set. 2. Arjun Sao 3. Krishna Sao, both are sons of late Ramballi Chand, residents of Purani Bazar, P.S. Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai --- Plaintiffs --- Respondents --- Opposite Party 2nd set. ---------------------------------- 3. 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Madanjeet Kumar for opposite party nos. 1 to 3. This civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.IV, Lakhisarai, in S.T.A. No. 10 of 2004, whereby it has been held that the appeal is hit by Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1944. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that Ganesh Sao since deceased, the late father of the present petitioners on the one hand, and Arjun 2 Sao and Krishna Sao( opposite party 2nd set) had appointed their Punches for grant of award with respect to disputed questions regarding division of movable properties between them. The arbitrators gave unanimous award on 23.4.1987. The petitioners challenged the award by preferring Title Suit No.142 of 1987, which has been rejected by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge II, Lakhisarai. The petitioners herein challenged the same by preferring S.T.A. No. 10 of 1004, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the arbitrators have not awarded anything in excess of the claims made by the parties. In that view of the matter, we agree with the impugned order that the appeal is beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)