Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar in pre-litigation case No.18 of 2011.

3. It appears that a pre-litigation case No.18 of 2011 was filed by the applicant-respondent against the opposite party-respondent in the Permanent Lok Adalat without making the present petitioner a party in the pre-litigation case. The petitioner claimed himself to be the full brother of the applicant and the pre-litigation case was filed for partition of the joint family property. The parties to the pre-litigation case compromised and on the basis of the compromise, the Lok Adalat passed the award. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said award on the ground that he was not made party in the pre-litigation case and that the respondent by playing fraud on the Permanent Lok Adalat obtained the Award. By the impugned order, the Permanent Lok Adalat rejected the application on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the said Misc. case.

4. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Chaubey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 have got no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cases which were not pending before any Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is the own brother of the applicant in the pre-litigation case and the subject mater of the pre-litigation case was the joint family property, therefore, the Judgment and Decree is vitiated. In such circumstances, the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is liable to be set side. The learned counsel further submitted that since the fraud was played upon the Permanent Lok Adalat by concealing the fact and mis-representation, the Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction to decide this question and record a finding regarding fraud. He relied upon a decision reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 201 SC. A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Others.

5. From perusal of the aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court, it appears that the Apex Court held that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hand. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other scrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenience lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

6. At paragraph 31 of the said Judgment, it has been held that the Judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall its Judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting side the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature of and the Constitution of the tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court’s business.

7. The learned counsel relying on paragraph 32 also on the said Judgment submitted that the Apex Court has held that the tribunal has also the jurisdiction to recall the order passed by the tribunal if it is found that by playing fraud on the tribunal the