1. I have already heard the learned counsel, Mr. Achhaibar Singh on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 6.

(2) The petitioner has filed this writ application for setting aside the order dated 04.07.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.6 of 2009 by Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has set aside the compromise award of the Lok Adalat dated 14.09.2006.

(3) It appears that Rajnath Singh had filed pre litigation case No.411 of 2006 before the Lok Adalat. All the parties to the said pre litigation case No.411 of 2006 compromised and a compromise application was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The said compromise was accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 14.09.2006 and an award was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father, Rajnath Singh who had filed pre litigation case died in January, 2009. After death of petitioner’s father, Ramuna Kuer and Anr. filed a Misc. case being Misc. Case No.6 of 2009 before the Permanent Lok Adalat and prayed for setting aside the compromise award and decree dated 14.09.2006. The Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner filed objection. The Permanent Lok Adalat then framed the issues and tried the dispute between the parties and by the impugned order decided the issue in favour of the petitioner in Misc. case and set aside the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the lifetime of father of the petitioner, there was no dispute. As soon as the father of the petitioner died, the Misc. case has been filed raising the ground of fraud. Permanent Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to try any issue. The jurisdiction conferred on the Permanent Lok Adalat is only to persuade the parties to arrive at compromise or settlement and, therefore, if there is no compromise between the parties, the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot decide the lis/dispute between the parties but here in the present case, the Permanent Lok Adalat assumed the jurisdiction of civil court and tried the matter as civil court and recorded a finding on the point of fraud as if Permanent Lok Adalat is a civil court. On these basis, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction as such, it is liable to the set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no provision in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to set aside the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat after trying the issue of fraud between the parties.

(5) On the contrary, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey submitted that the petitioner is guilty for contempt as the court below found that fraud was played upon. The Permanent Lok Adalat being a tribunal has the power to recall its own award if it is convinced that it had been obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation. Even if there is no provision in the Legal Services Authority Act, the tribunal/courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction for doing justice between the parties.

(6) The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon AIR 1924 Calcutta 953(Raj Rajeshwari Fiu vs. Gati Krishna Chakraworty) and submitted that the petitioner cannot be heard by court till he purged his contempt as the Permanent Lok Adalat found that fraud was committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel further relied upon Volume 16, Halsbury’s Law of England paragraph 1553 and submitted that the judgment obtained by fraud or collusion even if a judgment of the Houses of Lords may be treated as a nullity. The learned counsel further relied upon AIR 2000 SC 1165 and submitted that no court or tribunal is powerless and, therefore, even if there is no provision in the Legal Services Authority Act, the Permanent Lok Adalat can examining the point of