ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Bright Career Society is running a school in the name and style of "Bright Career Convent School" in the premises belonging to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the petitioner is in arrears of rent and, therefore, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises and the respondent No. 1 is also entitled for compensation. The suit was numbered as Civil Suit No. 235-A/95. The trial Court decreed the suit. Against the decree of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the Bright Career Society. The same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 36-A/99. In the appeal a compromise was filed in writing jointly by both the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is on the record of the petition as Annexure A-5. It was dated 19th September, 1999. The matter was sent to the Lok Adalat on the same day. Lok Adalat in terms of the aforesaid compromise, compromised the matter and passed the decree. 2. Petitioner Jitendra Singh Thakur has approached this Court not being satisfied with the decree of Lok Adalat and has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as no appeal lies against the decree of Lok Adalat. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. Diwakar. 4. This petition is on behalf of one Jitendra Singh Thakur, who has styled himself as Secretary of the Society, known as "Bright Career Society". The suit was filed against the Society. The appeal was filed by the Society. Compromise was between the Society and the respondent No. 1. 5. This petition firstly at the behest of Jitendra Singh Thakur is not maintainable. It is a Society, which could have grievance and which could have come forward. Secondly, the Third Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the petition, but he is not impleaded in the capacity as Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat, as is submitted by the learned counsel. Lok Adalat consists of the Bench not a single person. The Members of the Bench have not been pleaded. Secondly, the Third Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the petition, but he is not impleaded in the capacity as Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat, as is submitted by the learned counsel. Lok Adalat consists of the Bench not a single person. The Members of the Bench have not been pleaded. However, the allegation as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compromise was not out of free will and the same was under the pressure from the other side. No specific allegation is made against Lok Adalat Bench except that the petitioner was compelled by the Lok Adalat for entering into compromise and in this regard reliance was placed on paragraph 5.8 of the writ petition, which is as extracted below: "5.8. That the petitioner was given the impression by both the respondents that if he will settle the matter in the Lok Adalat, he will not be required to pay any rent, his Court fees will be refunded by the Court and the Court will take care of the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner was also compelled that if he will not compromise the matter in the Lok Adalat, his appeal will be dismissed without considering the same on merits. Under these circumstances the petitioner was left with no other option but to file the compromise application." From the above para, learned counsel relied on the portion-- "The petitioner was also compelled that if he will not compromise the matter in the Lok Adalat, his appeal will be dismissed without considering the same on merits", and for this reason he has made Third Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, as respondent No. 2. The compromise as recorded by the Lok Adalat is filed as Annexure A-6 with the petition. If any malafide is alleged against any official, official is made party by name and not by designation. Lok Adalat has recorded the compromise on the basis of the compromise as filed by the parties though on the same day, which is Annexure A-5 to the petition. 6. Learned counsel has not made out any case against the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat or about any fraud played by him except the allegation which has been mentioned in paragraph 5.8 of the petition. 7. 6. Learned counsel has not made out any case against the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat or about any fraud played by him except the allegation which has been mentioned in paragraph 5.8 of the petition. 7. In the petition it has not been stated that petitioner Jitendra Singh Thakur was present before the Lok Adalat and what is alleged to have been uttered was uttered by the Presiding Officer in his presence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as ejectment part is concerned, the petitioner is not aggrieved by that. The petitioner is aggrieved by the part relating to payment of arrears of rent and also regarding payment of mesne profits for occupation of the premises till the agreed date on which the premises is to be vacated. 9. I do not find any merit so to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is rejected.