ORDER: This revision petition has been filed by a third party challenging the order of the lower Court dated 17-10-2005 in I.A. No. Nil of 2005 in O.S. No.240 of 2003. 2. An application was filed before the District Legal Services Authority-cum- II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, by the parties to O.S. No.240 of 2003 except the petitioner for recording compromise in the said suit. It was referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed an award on 25-06-2003 recording the compromise in O.S. No.240 of 2003. After coming to know about the compromise decree, the petitioner filed the above I.A. praying to set aside the said award by contending that the plaintiff in the said suit played fraud on him by colluding with the second defendant and claiming that the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased - first defendant and the plaintiff is not related to the first defendant. He filed documents in support of his case and requested the said Court to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat. After hearing the petitioner, the Court passed the following order on 17-10-2005: Heard. The award is passed only after both parties to the suit have voluntarily consented for the terms and conditions incorporated in the award, and after read over and explained to them, and after they understand it. Hence, the award becomes final between the parties and it cannot be set aside, and there is no provision to set aside such award. This petition is not maintainable, hence, it cannot be numbered." 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the Court below failed to consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in proper perspective that the observation of the lower Court that the application is not maintainable is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below ought to have entertained and decided the matter on merits without coming to a conclusion that the application is not maintainable. 4. The revision petitioner filed the application before the lower Court by contending that his name is Kanithi Appala Suryanarayana. He is the adopted son of Kanithi Tata Rao and Kanithi Satyavathi who took him in adoption from his natural parents K.Appa Rao and Smt.Appala Narasamma. 4. The revision petitioner filed the application before the lower Court by contending that his name is Kanithi Appala Suryanarayana. He is the adopted son of Kanithi Tata Rao and Kanithi Satyavathi who took him in adoption from his natural parents K.Appa Rao and Smt.Appala Narasamma. Kanithi Tata Rao died in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, on 26-05-2005 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. Late Tata Rao has no children. Since the adoptive father died, the petitioner filed the application to set aside the award dated 25-06- 2003 by contending that the plaintiff and the second defendant colluded and obtained an award by playing fraud. The affidavits of his natural parents have also been filed for proving the factum of adoption. The petitioner came to know through elders that fraud was played by the second defendant by colluding with the plaintiff and obtained an award hurriedly without any knowledge putting his adoptive father Tata Rao under ignominy who was about 75 years old. Immediately he approached the counsel to obtain certified copies of the award and came to know as to what had happened in the Court and also outside the Court from the elders. He also published a public notice and the plaintiff gave reply published on 13-06-2005. The petitioner further contended that the plaintiff filed O.S. No.240 of 2003 against his father for partition claiming himself to be his son. His father was a barber by profession and was not well versed in general and English in particular. On receipt of the summons, his father approached the second respondent and at his instance both of them approached an Advocate who is none other than senior counsel of the plaintiff. They colluded each other and avoided the petitioner and got an award passed on 25-06-2003. The petitioner further contended that his mother pre-deceased his father. After her demise, the property was devolved upon his father and himself as both are legal heirs to her for her person and property. On account of old age, his father gave the property situated in S.No.182-183, 52/2 part, in N.G.O's colony, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam for development to second defendant. The petitioner further contended that his mother pre-deceased his father. After her demise, the property was devolved upon his father and himself as both are legal heirs to her for her person and property. On account of old age, his father gave the property situated in S.No.182-183, 52/2 part, in N.G.O's colony, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam for development to second defendant. The second defendant has to complete the construction within 18 months and till such date he has to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- to his father and after completion of the construction he has to give five flats and the remaining flats are to be registered to the persons to whom the builder sells. If construction is not completed within 18 months, the builder has to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for the said five flats to his father. On enquiries he came to know through elders that the plaintiff is the son of Paidamma. She came to their locality with the plaintiff when he was four or five years old. Since Paidamma was poor, his father and mother used to give financial assistance to her. After filing of the suit, his father came to know that the plaintiff's name was introduced by her with an ulterior motive to grab the property of himself and his father. Therefore, he requested the lower Court to set aside the award passed in O.S. No.240 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 5. O.S. No.240 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff against his father Tata Rao and the builder Surabhi Prasad claiming that he is entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property along with the first defendant. The petitioner is not a party to the suit. He is claiming that he is the adoptive son of late Kanithi Tata Rao and his wife, he is the only legal heir of late Tata Rao, and the plaintiff is not the son of late Tata Rao, but he was the son of one Paidamma. Before filing of the written statement, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and in the Lok Adalat, the consent award was passed as the first defendant reported no objection in the matter. The revision petitioner is a third party and he is not a party to the suit. Before filing of the written statement, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and in the Lok Adalat, the consent award was passed as the first defendant reported no objection in the matter. The revision petitioner is a third party and he is not a party to the suit. Therefore, whatever decree that was passed by the Lok Adalat is not binding on him as he was not the signatory of the alleged compromise between the parties. The revision petitioner has been asserting that he is the only legal heir of his adoptive father late Tata Rao and the plaintiff is not the son of late Tata Rao, therefore plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property. It is the further contention of the revision petitioner that the plaintiff as well as late Tata Rao colluded each other and played fraud in the Lok Adalat by representing that there is no other legal heirs to the first defendant and obtained the compromise decree. If any decree is passed, by consent between the parties that can be set aside if the fraud is proved as alleged by one of the parties. But, in respect of a third party such plea is not available and the decree is also not binding on him. If he has any legal right over the property, he has to file a suit for declaration that he is the only legal heir of his late father and the decree obtained by the plaintiff through Lok Adalat is liable to be set aside. The third party to a compromise cannot seek cancellation or setting aside the decree when it was passed by consent of the parties to the suit. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that a separate suit cannot be instituted to set aside the compromise decree after amendment of Rule 3-A of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the party challenging the compromise has to question the same before the same Court which had recorded the compromise and passed the decree by way of an application and not in a separate suit. 7. 7. In K.RAJAM RAJU v. Smt. P. RANGAMMA, 2006 (4) ALD 61 = 2003 (3) ALT 505, a learned single Judge of this Court held that when a plea of fraud is taken in a compromise decree, separate suit is not maintainable to got a compromise decree passed in an earlier suit set aside. The party has to approach the same Court which passed the compromise decree for the said relief by filing an application. 8. In BANWARI LAL v. CHANDO DEVI AIR 1993 SC 1139 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "A party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to R.3 of O.23, or an appeal under S.96 (1) of the Code, in which he can now question the validity of the compromise in view of R.1A of O.43 of the Code. If the agreement or the compromise itself is fraudulent then it shall be deemed to be void within the meaning of the explanation to the proviso to R.3 and as such not lawful. In the instant case the plaintiff challenged the order recording compromise on the ground his counsel in collusion with defendant of the said suit had played fraud on him by filing a fabricated petition of compromise although no compromise had been effected between him and the defendant. Further details of fraud were mentioned in the said petition and it was stated that the alleged compromise itself was void, illegal and against the requirement of O.23, R.3. Therefore, the entertaining of the application filed on behalf of plaintiff and considering the question as to whether there had been a lawful agreement or compromise on the basis of which the Court could have recorded such agreement or compromise, by the trial Court was proper. Since the material produced on the record showed that the compromise was not lawful within the meaning of R.3, the order recorded compromise could be recalled." 9. In the above decisions the party who made the application to set aside the compromise is one of the parties to the suit and the compromise. In the present case, the petitioner is a third party, therefore, the principles in the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In SANJAY KUMAR & Anr. Vs. In the above decisions the party who made the application to set aside the compromise is one of the parties to the suit and the compromise. In the present case, the petitioner is a third party, therefore, the principles in the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In SANJAY KUMAR & Anr. Vs. SECRETARY, CITY CIVIL COURT, LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD & OTHERS 2007 (6) ALD 217 = 2007 (2) LS 281 (DB) a Division Bench of this Court held that the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority cannot pass an order rejecting the petition made by one of the parties. It amounts to discharge of judicial functions which the Secretary did not possess. The Secretary ought to have placed the matter before the Lok Adalat for appropriate orders. The powers, duties and functions of the Secretary being purely Secretarial in nature and administrative in character, the order was set aside. The principle laid down in the above decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. The learned counsel also cited various decisions to the effect that the Court has inherent power to investigate the question and set aside the decree if aggrieved party is found not to have consented to compromise. 12. In the present case the petitioner is not the consenting party to the compromise, therefore the question of pleading fraud by the other party does not arise and I am of the view that the petitioner is at liberty to question the compromise decree in a separate suit by seeking to declare that he is the sole legal heir of late Tata Rao. 13. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.