JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging compromise decree dated 14.5.2022 passed in RCS No.229-A/2022 by Lok Adalat, Jabalpur.

2. Virendra Patel who is respondent No.3 in this petition had entered into an agreement to sale with respondent No.1 namely Rakesh Gupta on 21.1.2009. Virendra Patel is power of attorney holder on behalf of owner Siya Bai granted to him on 29.11.2008.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 namely Rakesh Gupta and Neeraj Jain filed civil suit No.229-A/2022 against respondent No.3 namely Virendra Patel for specific performance of contract. In said suit a joint application was filed by plaintiffs and defendant under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for passing of decree on basis of compromise. On basis of said application, statements of parties were recorded. Factum of compromise was verified and application was allowed and decree was prepared accordingly. Registered sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 on basis of decree dated 14.5.2022 by respondent No.3 in Office of Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur on 22.7.2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that decree dated 14.5.2022 was obtained from Lok Adalat by playing fraud. FIR has also been registered against Virendra Patel whose actual name is Virendra Amgaonkar. It is submitted that later on original owner of land in question namely Siya Bai had filed a civil suit against respondent No.3 bearing No.12-A/2013 for declaring power of attorney dated 29.11.2008 and sale deed dated 12.06.2009 to be null and void before trial Court. Another suit has been filed by Ganga Prasad, Ashish, Manish, Girish Kuraria for permanent injunction against Siya Bai in respect of same property. Counsel for petitioner submitted that power of attorney dated 29.11.2008 and sale deed dated 12.6.2009 are forged and fabricated document. Respondents had played fraud upon Court and had obtained order from Lok Adalat, therefore, prayer is made for quashing of judgment and decree dated 14.05.2022 and also to quash execution proceedings in said case. It is submitted that award passed by Lok Adalat under Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 become final and cannot be challenged in appeal. Said award can be set aside by this Court exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Respondents have raised preliminary objection that petition involves disputed and complicated questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has suppressed material facts that order dated 14.5.2022 is also under challenge in Civil Suit No.229-A/2022, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner has also filed an objection in execution case. Prayer for stay was dismissed by executing Court directing parties to maintain status quo on 22.9.2022. Petitioner is having efficacious and alternative remedy available to him and remedy was also exercised by filing objections. In view of same, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties on question of preliminary objections.

7. In preliminary objection, which is filed under Order 21 Rule 101 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner-Objector has made a prayer that judgment and decree dated 14.5.2022 passed in RCS No.229-A/2022 be set aside as same has been obtained by playing fraud. Same prayer is made by petitioner in this writ petition.

8. Relevant provision of Code of Civil Procedure under Order 21 Rules, 97, 99, 101 and section 22-E of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 are quoted as under:-

"97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.- (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of suc