1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendant in OS. No. 317 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, requesting to set aside the Award, dated 05.02.2012, in the aforementioned suit, passed by the Lok Adalat Bench constituted by the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam. I have heard the submissions of Smt. B. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-defendant and of Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. I have perused the material record.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arraigned in the suit for convenience and clarity.

3. At the outset, the facts, which lead to the filing of this revision petition by the defendant, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff brought the afore-stated suit against the defendant for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- due under a registered mortgage deed with interest and for granting a preliminary decree for the suit amount with interest and costs. The mortgaged property, as described in the plaint schedule, is a site of an extent of 488.9 square yards with 200 square feet ACC shed bearing plot No. 84/35 in D Block, within S. No. 64 part, Industrial Development Area, Chinagantyada village, within Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation area. The defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, at the request of both the parties, referred the suit to Lok Adalat to enable the parties to amicably settle the matter. In the Lok Adalat held on 05.02.2012, the Bench of the Lok Adalat presided over by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, (Judge, Fast Track Court), Gajuwaka, an Advocate-cum-Member and a social worker-cum-Member passed the Award impugned in this revision and accordingly the suit was disposed of as per the terms and conditions stated in the Award passed by the Lok Adalat Bench. Aggrieved thereof, the defendant preferred this revision.

4. The case of the defendant, which is relevant and which requires consideration, in brief, is this:

"The Lok Adalat Award was obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant's counsel. The defendant gave a complaint against his counsel to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, on 25.11.2013, after coming to know of the Award of the Lok Adalat. No mediation or conciliation took place either before the civil Court or the Lok Adalat. The alleged compromise and the Lok Adalat Award are a result of the fraud played by the plaintiff. Indeed, this defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit, inter-alia, pleading in the defence that the mortgage debt was already discharged in the year 2009 itself. The Award of the Lok Adalat is a one-sided Award. The terms and conditions in the Award itself reflect that it is a one-sided Award. Hence, the Award of the Lok Adalat is liable to set aside and the suit is liable to be restored to file for disposal after conducting full fledged trial."

5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the defendant while reiterating the case of the defendant, which is stated supra, further urged as under:

The defendant had taken a specific defence that the defendant had borrowed the amount covered by the registered mortgage deed only and that at the time of obtaining loan under the said mortgage deed, the plaintiff pressurized the defendant to sign two blank promissory notes and two blank cheques and also to deposit the title deed relating to the property of the defendant as security and that as per the demand of the plaintiff, the defendant executed not only the registered mortgage deed but also issued two signed blank promissory notes and signed cheques of UCO Bank, Gajuwaka, bearing numbers 455687 and 455688, and further deposited his sale deed dated 31.05.2006 and that the defendant subsequently discharged the mortgage debt by issuing a cheque d