Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar purporting to be as Lok Adalat in Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner moved under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. and refused to set aside the award dated 30.4.2006 passed by Lok Adalat in Original Suit No. 852 of 2005.

2. It is stated that Original Suit No. 852 of 2005 was instituted by respondent No. 1 father of the petitioner by impleading her brother Dr. Ravi Kant as defendant No. 1 and petitioner as defendant No. 2. On 30.4.2006 the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise alleged to have been signed by the petitioner as defendant No. 2 in suit before the Lok Adalat held on that day. It is stated that in fact the petitioner had neither any knowledge of the institution of said suit nor she had engaged any counsel nor any compromise application was moved and signed by her nor she was present before the Court or Lok Adalat on 30.4.2006 and signed said compromise before the Lok Adalat, as such no award could be made by the Lok Adalat. When on 24.3.2007 the petitioner came to know about the said fraudulent compromise decree then she filed application under Order 9 Rule13 read with Section-151, C.P.C. for setting aside the said compromise decree which was registered as Case No. 57 of 2007. On 24.10.2007 the plaintiff opp. party No. 1 has filed his objection. Thereafter abruptly on 26.8.2008 the plaintiff opp. party No. 1 has moved an application 112 Ga praying that Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007 be dismissed as not maintainable. Thereupon vide impugned order dated 3.9.2008 Civil Judge (Senior Division) Muzaffar Nagar has dismissed the aforesaid case No. 57 of 2007 holding that the petitioner’s counsel had signed the compromise on her behalf cannot be faulted with and application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. is also not maintainable, hence this petition.

3. Sri Ravi Kant learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Naveen Sinha for respondent No. 2 have contended that in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, 2005 (3) AWC 3048 (SC), writ petition against the award of Lok Adalat and impugned order are not maintainable, wherein Three Judges Bench of Apex Court had held that the order passed by Lok Adalat constituted under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1987, cannot be called in question either in appeal or revision or even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Contrary to it, the submission of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case the remedy of judicial review under Article 226 is barred against the impugned order, the petitioner would be left remediless to ventilate her grievances and urged that it is well settled that every authority has jurisdiction to recall its order if it is found that such order is obtained by misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the authority or result of mistake of facts, without any express power of review is vested in such authority as the powers to recall such order is inherent in every authority. He further urged that at any rate observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in P. T. Thomas case (supra) should be understood in the context of the facts of aforesaid case and the facts of the instant case are quite distinguishable and the question in consideration before this Court is that as to whether any award made by the Lok Adalat was with the consent of the petitioner based on any compromise entered into parties, signed by the petitioner before Lok Adalat or not? Therefore, if the aforesaid fact that the parties have entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat is disputed by the petitioner, the issue could be examined by the Lok Adalat itself as the fraud played upon the authorities cannot be permitted to be per