Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No. 1096 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, maintained against the revision respondent/defendant, the suit for recovery of money based on pro-note. The revision petitioner impugning the order in IA.No. 237 of 2007 therein passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, on 22.06.2012, dismissing his application filed under Sections 114 and 151 CPC to review the award of Lok Adalat dated 09.11.2004, maintained the revision.

2. The facts show that in the suit for recovery of money while under contest by the defendant through alleged intervention of elders known to the parties, there was a compromise arrived between them and a joint memo of compromise filed by the plaintiff and defendant before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in that suit OS.No. 1096/2003 with the terms of defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff Rs.3,93,840/- in full and final settlement of the suit claim payable on or before 31.03.2005 subject to passing of receipt by plaintiff and in the case of failure, the plaintiff is at liberty to execute and recover the same and the matter was as sought for referring to Lok Adalat pursuant to the terms of compromise and referred to the Mega Lok Adalat that was held on 09.11.2004.

3. It is the further say that even the terms of said compromise appended to the memo of compromise for settlement in passing award and said terms even attached to the award of lok adalat, it was due to the mistake of Mega Lok Adalat Authority of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Vijayawada dated 09.11.2004, observed wrongly Dr. SSRB, J without adverting to the terms of compromise of the civil money dispute settlement arrived, by mentioning as if a criminal compoundable offence and settlement for acquittal that "the Mandal Legal Services Committee convened the lok adalat on that day and the victim/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant appeared and persuaded to settle the matter amicably and after discussion voluntarily agreed to compound the offence with defendant which is punishable under Section .. and lok adalat was pleased to record the same and acquitted the accused from the said offence."

4. It is further averred in the petition affidavit covered by the impugned order that the defendant after settlement outside court and pursuant to it paid Rs.65,000/- by way of a cheque bearing No. 101413, drawn on Durga Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Vijayawada, on 29.09.2006, towards part payment of the amount settled and failed to pay the balance which made the plaintiff to file EP.No. 100/2006 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. It was there, the mistake on the part of lok adalat committee supra was detected and the EP proceeding were not pressed for the time being with a view to cause rectify the award pursuant to the terms of the compromise memo entered in the suit and thereby sought for review by filing the application.

5. By the impugned order dated 26.6.2012 the petition was dismissed with the observations that defendants filed counter opposing the review application saying the court got no jurisdiction to entertain any petition and same is also barred by limitation. The defendant also contested saying he did not put his signature on the compromise memo agreeing to pay said amount mentioned in the compromise memo and what Rs.65,000/- by way of cheque paid on 29.09.2006 is in full quids of the pronote debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant. The Legal Services Authority Act no way entitles any review beside not filed within 30 days from the date of award but for after lapse of 4 years, that also barred by law. The Court therefrom observed that against the award passed by the lok adalat on 09.11.2004, the review is not filed within time of 30 days and 4 years time taken to file is not explained and the award of the lok adalat became final and cannot be questio