ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash the award dated 30.01.2017 passed in Lok Adalath in OS No.688 of 2017 on the file of the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the order dated 04.10.2017 passed in Execution Case No.424 of 2017 on the file of the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, granting police protection for the respondents to construct the compound wall. 2. Heard Sri. N.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent and not addressed his arguments till today. Hence, his arguments is taken as Nil. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.1 being the plaintiff filed the suit OS No.688 of 2017 on 24.01.2017 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant who is respondent No.2 herein. Within 5 days, both of them entered into compromise to settle the dispute in the Lok Adalath held on 30.01.2017. Accordingly, the award was passed. Based on the award, Execution Case No.424 of 2017 came to be filed on 13.02.2017. The decree holder sought for police protection for the purpose of construction of the compound wall and accordingly, the Court passed the order dated 04.10.2017 permitting the judgment debtor to construct the compound wall by providing police protection.

4. Learned counsel submits that the sequence of dates and events disclose that the respondents in collusion with one another filed the suit for perpetual injunction, got the award in Lok Adalath and under the guise of executing the award to construct the compound wall under the police protection over the property belonging to the petitioners. It is the petitioners who are in possession and enjoyment of the property, whereas both the plaintiff and the defendant are strangers. It is a clear case of fraud played in a collusive suit, to grab the property belonging to the petitioners. Since the award passed before the Lok Adalath is non appealable one, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the compromise award passed before the Lok Adalath on 30.01.2017 and also to set aside the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Executing Court.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decree holder in the said suit filed Execution Case No.424 of 2017 and an application was filed seeking police protection for construction of the compound wall. It is at this juncture, compromising the matter in the Lok Adalat and passing an award dated 30.01.2017 was brought to the notice of the petitioners herein.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since there is a bar for filing fresh suit in view of Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC, he has filed this writ petition contending that the award dated 30.01.2017 was obtained by playing fraud on the Court. According to the learned counsel, there is a bar for filing fresh suit and it is only in the form of writ, the award passed by the Lok Adalat could be challenged.

7. Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC refers to compromise of the suit between the parties to the lis. Rule 3A of Order 23 refers to bar for filing the suit. When the parties to the lis enter into compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and a decree is obtained from the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, such compromise decree bars the parties to the litigation to file fresh suit seeking to set aside the decree on the ground that such compromise decree was either not lawful or obtained by playing fraud.

8. I have to refer to Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), which refers to the award of the Lok Adalat which is deemed to be the decree of a Civil Court and as per sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act, such an award passed in the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute. No appeal is provided against such compromise between the parties.

9. It i