JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The claimants in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have filed this revision. It is stated that the reference numbered as M.J.C. No. 59 of 1987 in the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore, was taken up before the Lok Adalat for disposal, but due to illness of petitioner No. 2, no steps were taken on behalf of the present petitioners and consequently, the award was confirmed. Therefore, an application was filed u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 25.10.1992. The said application having been rejected as not maintainable, the present Civil Revision has been filed. 2. The Court below has held that since the award by the Collector had been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act should have been filed and as such an application u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, is not maintainable. 3. Law is now well-settled that even though remedy of appeal is available, the power to recall an order u/s 151 can be invoked and existence of remedy by way of appeal is not an absolute bar for exercise of power u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the trial Court should not have rejected the application on that score. 4. In ordinary course, I would have remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the application u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure. However, since "he award of the Collector has been confirmed in the absence of the petitioners during Lok Adalat, I deem it necessary to remand the matter to that stage. If the petitioners were absent during Lok Adalat which is meant to resolve dispute by amicable settlement, the Court could not have confirmed the award in the absence of the petitioners and should have posted the same for regular hearing. The explanation of the petitioners that due to illness of petitioner No. 2, they could not take steps appears to be acceptable. At any rate, since the Court had no power to dispose of the matter in Lok Adalat without consent of the parties, the said order should not stand in the way of the matter being heard on merit. 5. At any rate, since the Court had no power to dispose of the matter in Lok Adalat without consent of the parties, the said order should not stand in the way of the matter being heard on merit. 5. In the result, the revision is allowed and the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore, is directed to dispose of the reference u/s 18 (MJC No. 59/87) on merit by affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29th, September, 1997, for receiving further direction in the matter. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed