1. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner(Respondent No.1 in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006) praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure- 1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Cuttack.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Party No.1(Prabhat Kumar Swain) in this revision being the appellant had filed the 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 under Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908 in the court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack praying for setting aside the compromise decree on the ground of fraud passed in a suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993 in the court of learned Sub-judge, 1st Court, Cuttack on dated 21.03.1993 (Annexure-4) in a Lok Adalat.

                  During the pendency of that 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006, the Respondent No.1 in that 1st appeal(petitioner in this revision) filed a petition on dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure-6) praying for rejection/dismissal of the 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 on the ground of its maintainability stating that, the   compromise    decree   passed    on   dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993 in the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by preferring an appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 under Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908 due to bar contained in Section 21(2) of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for which, the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected, because, the same is not maintainable/entertainable under law.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned District Judge, Cuttack rejected to the petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the Respondent No.1 of that 1st appeal vie RFA No.40 of 2006 on dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) relying upon the decision of this Court between Smt. Gourimani @ Umamani Devi and others vrs. Narayan Tripathy and others : reported in 2016(I) CLR-398 assigning the reasons that,

                  “as the appellant in the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 was not a party in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993, for which, he is not precluded under law to challenge the compromise decree passed in that suit in the Lok Adalat on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) by preferring an appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006.”

4. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1), i.e., to the rejection of the petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the petitioner for rejection of the RFA No.40 of 2006, he (petitioner in this revision) challenged the same by filing this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 against the appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006 arraying him as Opposite Party No.1 and also arraying others as proforma Opposite Parties praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.40 of 2006.

5. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in RFA No.40 of 2006) and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1(appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006).

6. In  order  to  assail  the  impugned  order  dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court between Bharvagi Constructions and another vrs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others : reported in 2017(II) CLR (S.C.)-825.

7. The legal procedures/forums for challenging a compromise decree passed in a Lok Afdalat like the impugned compromise decree passed on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) in T.S. No.110 of 1993 has already been clarified in the ratio of following decisions:-

                  (i) In a case between Sri Purna Chandra Das vrs. Smt. Pagili Das and others : reported in 2015(I) CLR-395 that, when a compromise decree passed in a suit in a Lok Adalat is challenged on the ground of violation of its procedures, the said allegations can only be enquired into and considered by the same court, in which, the compromise decree in the Lok Adalat was passed, but, not by any other court or by any appellate court.

                  (ii) In  a  case  between  Suresh  Mohapatra  vrs. Smt. Kamala Mohapatra and anther : reported in 2017(II) CLR-45 that, when a petition is filed for setting aside a compromise decree passed in a suit in the Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud, the same can only be made by filing  a  petition  under  Order-23, Rule-3-A of the C.P.C. in the same court, in which, the compromise decree in Lok Adalat was passed, but, not through a separate suit or through an appeal.

                  (iii) In a case between Dutti Barik(since dead) through L.Rs. vrs. Minati Barik and others decided on 10.02.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14847 of 2008 that, a compromise decree passed in a suit in Lok Adalat can be challenged only by filing a petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, that too on very limited grounds enumerated therein.

                  (iv) In a case between Bharvagi Constructions and another vrs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others : reported in 2017(II) CLR (S.C.)-825 relying upon the decision between State of Punjab vrs. Jalour Singh : reported in (2008) 2 SCC-660 that, in order to challenge a compromise decree passed in a suit in the Lok Adalat, a writ petition under Articles 226 or / and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is maintainable, but, not a separate suit or an appeal.

                  (v) In a case between Sadara Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Lok Adalat and others. : reported in 2025(2) Civil Court Cases-042(A.P.) (D.B.) that, a third party to a suit can challenge the compromise decree passed in suit in the Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud, only by way of a writ petition, if special circumstances are made for challenging the same(Para No.9).

                  (vi) In a case between Sakina Sultanali Sunesara(Momin) vrs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj and others : reported in 2025(3) CCC(S.C.) -4 that, in order to challenge a compromise decree passed in a suit in the Lok Adalat, only a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India remains available.

8. When, the position of law on this aspect for challenging a compromise decree passed in a suit in the Lok Adalat like the compromise decree passed in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993 at hand on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions that, even a third party to the alleged compromise decree passed in a suit in a Lok Adalat like the Opposite Party No.1 in this revision(appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006) cannot challenge the said compromise decree passed in the Lok Aalat by preferring an appeal like RFA No.40 of 2006, then at this juncture, it is held that, the RFA No.40 of 2006 filed by the Opposite Party No.1 in this revision was not entertainable/maintainable under law.

9. For which, the learned 1st appellate court should not have rejected to the petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the petitioner in this revision through the impugned order dated 06.03.2023 (Annxure-1).

                  Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Cuttack cannot be sustainable under law.

10. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Cuttack through this revision filed by the petitioner.

11. As such, there is merit in this revision filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

12. In result, this revision filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest, but, without cost.

13. The impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexur-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Cuttack is set aside.

                  The petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) filed by the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in RFA No.40 of 2006) in RFA No.40 of 2006 is allowed.

                  The appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 is rejected/dismissed, as the same was not entertainable under law.

                  However, the appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006(Opposite Party No.1 in this revision) may approach an appropriate forum as per law to challenge the compromise decree passed on dated 21.03.1993 (Annexure-4) in the Lok Adalat in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993.

14. As such, this civil revision filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.