JUDGMENT : Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. - By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in Misc. Case No. 84 of 1996 arising out of Money Suit No. 87 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the compromise decree passed in the Lok Adalat was set aside under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 2. The petitioner had availed a term loan amounting to Rs. 80,000/- from opposite party No. 2-Bank to purchase a tractor. He became defaulter. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2-Bank laid Money Suit No. 87 of 1996 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda for realization of Rs. 2,44,539/- along with interest. While the matter stood thus, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat held on 7.5.2000. A joint compromise petition was filed by the parties on certain terms and conditions, vide Annexure-7. The contents of the petition had been read over and explained to the parties. They admitted to be correct. Learned trial court accepted the compromise petition and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Learned trial court observed that the compromise petition will form part of the decree. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the entire amount in terms of the compromise and the same was accepted by the Bank. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review the order dated 7.5.2000 passed by the learned court below in the Lok Adalat. It is stated that the suit was originally filed for recovery of Rs. 2,44,539/- and subsequently the same was increased to Rs. 3,09,722/- by way of amendment. The suit was placed before the Lok Adalat on 7.5.2000 and decreed for Rs. 1,15,000/- on the compromise petition signed by defendant No. 1 and Assistant Manager of the Bank. While signing the compromise petition, the Assistant Manager put the seal of the Bank and signed the same as if he was an agent of the Bank without any authority to act as a Bank Manager in the Lok Adalat. Further, advocate for the plaintiff had not signed the compromise petition and unaware of the same. The Branch Manager has alone the authority to file a suit, sign the plaint, petition, appoint lawyers and has no authority to transfer power to any other officer/employee. Further, advocate for the plaintiff had not signed the compromise petition and unaware of the same. The Branch Manager has alone the authority to file a suit, sign the plaint, petition, appoint lawyers and has no authority to transfer power to any other officer/employee. It is further stated that the compromise made in the Lok Adalat was not lawful and the court acted beyond his jurisdiction and accepted the petition for compromise between the Bank and the defendants. To substantiate the case, the Assistant Manager of the Bank, who signed the compromise petition, was examined as P.W.1. By order dated 15.1.2003, learned trial court allowed the application and set aside the order dated 7.5.2000 passed in the Lok Adalat. 3. Heard Mr. Chandan Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties. 4. With a solemn aim for providing free legal aid, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was enacted by the Parliament. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act states as follows: "Article 39A of the Constitution provides that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. 2. With the object of providing free legal aid, Government had, by a Resolution dated the 26th September, 1980 appointed the "Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes" (CILAS) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) to monitor and implement legal aid programmes on uniform basis in all the States and Union territories. CILAS evolved a model scheme for legal aid programme applicable throughout the country by which several legal aid and advice boards have been set up in the States and Union territories. CILAS is funded wholly by grants from the Central Government. The Government is accordingly concerned with the programme of legal aid as it is the implementation of a constitutional mandate. But on a review of the working of the CILAS, certain deficiencies have come to the fore. CILAS is funded wholly by grants from the Central Government. The Government is accordingly concerned with the programme of legal aid as it is the implementation of a constitutional mandate. But on a review of the working of the CILAS, certain deficiencies have come to the fore. It is, therefore, felt that it will be desirable to constitute statutory legal service authorities at the National, State and District levels so as to provide for the effective monitoring of legal aid programmes. The Bill provides for the composition of such authorities and for the funding of these authorities by means of grants from the Central Government and the State Governments. Power has also been given to the National Committee and the State Committees to supervise the effective implementation of legal aid schemes. 3. For some time now, Lok Adalats are being constituted at various places in the country for the disposal, in a summary way and through the process of arbitration and settlement between the parties, of a large number of cases expeditiously and with lesser costs. The institution of Lok Adalats is at present functioning as a voluntary and conciliatory agency without any statutory backing for its decisions. It has proved to be very popular in providing for a speedier system of administration of justice. In view of its growing popularity, there has been a demand for providing a statutory backing to this institution and the awards given by Lok Adalats. It is felt that such a statutory support would not only reduce the burden of arrears of work in regular courts, but would also take justice to the door-steps of the poor and the needy and make justice quicker and less expensive." 5. The Act was enacted with a view to give effect to the mandate of Article 39A of the Constitution of India. The Lok Adalat is an ancient system of adjudication of disputes. It is a People's Court. Lok Adalat provides for cheap and inexpensive justice to the common man. The benefits of Lok Adalat have been succinctly stated by the apex Court in the case of P.T. Thomas Vs. Thomas Job which is quoted below: "The 'Lok Adalat' is an old form of adjudicating system prevailed in ancient India and its validity has not been taken away even in the modern days too. The words 'Lok Adalat' mean 'People's Court'. Thomas Job which is quoted below: "The 'Lok Adalat' is an old form of adjudicating system prevailed in ancient India and its validity has not been taken away even in the modern days too. The words 'Lok Adalat' mean 'People's Court'. This system is based on Gandhian principles. It is one of the components of ADR system. As the Indian courts are overburdened with the backlog of cases and the regular courts are to decide the cases involve a lengthy, expensive and tedious procedure. The court takes years together to settle even petty cases. Lok Adalat, therefore provides alternative resolution or devise for expeditious and inexpensive justice. In Lok Adalat proceedings there are no victors and vanquished and, thus, no rancour. Experiment of 'Lok Adalat' as an alternate mode of dispute settlement has come to be accepted in India, as a viable, economic, efficient and informal one. LOK ADALAT is another alternative to JUDICIAL JUSTICE. This is a recent strategy for delivering informal, cheap and expeditious justice to the common man by way of settling disputes, which are pending in courts and also those, which have not yet reached courts by negotiation, conciliation and by adopting persuasive, common sense and human approach to the problems of the disputants, with the assistance of specially trained and experienced members of a team of conciliators." 19. Benefits under Lok Adalat 1. There is no court fee and if court fee is already paid the amount will be refunded if the dispute is settled at Lok Adalat according to the rules. 2. The basic features of Lok Adalat are the procedural flexibility and speedy trial of the disputes. There is no strict application of procedural laws like the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act while assessing the claim by Lok Adalat. 3. The parties to the dispute can directly interact with the judge through their counsel which is not possible in regular courts of law. 4. The award by the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties and it has the status of a decree of a civil court and it is non-appealable, which does not cause the delay in the settlement of disputes finally. In view of above facilities provided by "the Act" Lok Adalats are boon to the litigating public that they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost amicably." 6. In view of above facilities provided by "the Act" Lok Adalats are boon to the litigating public that they can get their disputes settled fast and free of cost amicably." 6. Section 21 of the Act deals with award of Lok Adalat. The same is quoted hereunder; "21. Award of Lok Adalat- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award." 7. The specific language used in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act makes it clear that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court and, as such, executable by that court. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act provides that every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the disputes, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. The decree can be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC provided the same satisfies the pre-conditions enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 8. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder; "Order - XLVII REVIEW 1. The decree can be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC provided the same satisfies the pre-conditions enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 8. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder; "Order - XLVII REVIEW 1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes; and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review." 9. Interpreting the aforesaid provision, the apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, held as follows: "15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles: 16. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles: 16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:-- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) and approved by this Court in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council), to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) . (B) When the review will not be maintainable:-- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 10. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the instant case may be examined. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 10. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the instant case may be examined. The matter was placed before the Lok Adalat on 7.5.2000. The Assistant Manager of the Bank as well as defendant No. 1-loanee signed the compromise petition. The Assistant Manager of the Bank had put the seal of the Bank. The contents of the compromise petition had been read over and explained to the parties in presence of their advocates. They admitted the same to be correct. Thereafter, the learned trial court decreed the suit in terms of the compromise and observed that the compromise petition shall do form part of the decree. When a responsible officer of the Bank signed the compromise petition and admitted the same to be correct, this Court fails to understand as to how learned trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction in accepting the compromise petition. Neither there is any material on record to show that the Assistant Manager of the Bank signed the compromise petition at the behest of the Court, nor the decree was obtained by playing fraud on Court. Frivolous allegation has been made against the court without any foundational facts. A litigant cannot be permitted to make frivolous allegation against the Court to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. If such a petition is entertained, then it will frustrate the mandate of the Act. 11. Pursuant to the compromise petition the suit was disposed of. Defendant No. 1-loanee has paid the entire amount and the same has been accepted by the Bank. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the decree passed in the Lok Adalat. 12. In the wake of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in Misc. Case No. 84 of 1996 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Final Result : Allowed