ORDER : Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No. 1096 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, maintained against the revision respondent/defendant, the suit for recovery of money based on pro-note. The revision petitioner impugning the order in IA.No. 237 of 2007 therein passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, on 22.06.2012, dismissing his application filed under Sections 114 and 151 CPC to review the award of Lok Adalat dated 09.11.2004, maintained the revision. 2. The facts show that in the suit for recovery of money while under contest by the defendant through alleged intervention of elders known to the parties, there was a compromise arrived between them and a joint memo of compromise filed by the plaintiff and defendant before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in that suit OS.No. 1096/2003 with the terms of defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff Rs.3,93,840/- in full and final settlement of the suit claim payable on or before 31.03.2005 subject to passing of receipt by plaintiff and in the case of failure, the plaintiff is at liberty to execute and recover the same and the matter was as sought for referring to Lok Adalat pursuant to the terms of compromise and referred to the Mega Lok Adalat that was held on 09.11.2004. 3. It is the further say that even the terms of said compromise appended to the memo of compromise for settlement in passing award and said terms even attached to the award of lok adalat, it was due to the mistake of Mega Lok Adalat Authority of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Vijayawada dated 09.11.2004, observed wrongly Dr. SSRB, J without adverting to the terms of compromise of the civil money dispute settlement arrived, by mentioning as if a criminal compoundable offence and settlement for acquittal that "the Mandal Legal Services Committee convened the lok adalat on that day and the victim/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant appeared and persuaded to settle the matter amicably and after discussion voluntarily agreed to compound the offence with defendant which is punishable under Section .. and lok adalat was pleased to record the same and acquitted the accused from the said offence." 4. and lok adalat was pleased to record the same and acquitted the accused from the said offence." 4. It is further averred in the petition affidavit covered by the impugned order that the defendant after settlement outside court and pursuant to it paid Rs.65,000/- by way of a cheque bearing No. 101413, drawn on Durga Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Vijayawada, on 29.09.2006, towards part payment of the amount settled and failed to pay the balance which made the plaintiff to file EP.No. 100/2006 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. It was there, the mistake on the part of lok adalat committee supra was detected and the EP proceeding were not pressed for the time being with a view to cause rectify the award pursuant to the terms of the compromise memo entered in the suit and thereby sought for review by filing the application. 5. By the impugned order dated 26.6.2012 the petition was dismissed with the observations that defendants filed counter opposing the review application saying the court got no jurisdiction to entertain any petition and same is also barred by limitation. The defendant also contested saying he did not put his signature on the compromise memo agreeing to pay said amount mentioned in the compromise memo and what Rs.65,000/- by way of cheque paid on 29.09.2006 is in full quids of the pronote debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant. The Legal Services Authority Act no way entitles any review beside not filed within 30 days from the date of award but for after lapse of 4 years, that also barred by law. The Court therefrom observed that against the award passed by the lok adalat on 09.11.2004, the review is not filed within time of 30 days and 4 years time taken to file is not explained and the award of the lok adalat became final and cannot be questioned and therefore review cannot lie and to pass award in terms of compromise signature of both parties is absent on the compromise. It is impugning the same, the present revision is filed. 6. Heard both sides at length and perused the material on record. 7. It is impugning the same, the present revision is filed. 6. Heard both sides at length and perused the material on record. 7. The law is very clear in this regard from the expression of the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors 2003 (6) SCC 675 and the Three Judge Bench expression in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others (2015) 5 SCC 423 (LB) on reference answered the same confirming the previous expression in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil 3 (2010) 8 SCC 329 . Thus though the lok adalat award became final to record the terms of compromise, when there is a sheer mistake on the part of the Lokadalat committee in passing award as if a criminal compounding case even terms of compromise filed is for pronote debt settlement inherent power inheres on it to rectify its own mistake that otherwise amounts to the lokadalat committee itself abusing the process of law. Leave it as it is impugning the award a revision lies from the said settled law. Here based on the principle of actus curiae neninem gravabit the fault of the Court or Lokadalat committee, which even requires suo motu jurisdiction to exercise to recall its illegal order rather perpetrating even brought to its notice for no man shall be prejudiced by act of Court not sanctioned by law and same ignored by the lower Court in dismissing the application. 8. In fact there was a compromise joint memo with terms once submitted and parties present and the award agreed to be passed pursuant to which and instead of passing award as per the memo, the Lok Adalat Committee went wrong in saying as if it is a criminal compounding case instead of civil money recovery case under settlement for already settled. 9. Thus though the lower Court not chosen to interfere, once these facts brought to the notice of this Court while sitting in revision against the same, within the plenary jurisdiction, duty bound to rectify. 9. Thus though the lower Court not chosen to interfere, once these facts brought to the notice of this Court while sitting in revision against the same, within the plenary jurisdiction, duty bound to rectify. Coming to facts of the suit filed and while under contest there was a compromise entered outside the Court and pursuant to which the defendant agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3,93,840/- from the date of settlement and payable on or before 31.03.2005 not in dispute but for to say now as if not signatory. When terms not in dispute even an oral settlement arrived and said admission is enough to estop and not to riggle out. Further out of it what was paid of Rs.65,000/- by cheque dated 29.09.2006 even not in dispute and to say same is in full quids is absurd and with no basis to say, the remaining amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant. It is also because defendant could not say what settlement otherwise than the money suit claim arrived. As such for mistake of Court, the delinquent cannot take advantage and unfairly make any attempt to riggle out and court cannot allow to perpetrate such illegal and improper conduct. 10. Thus, the revision is allowed setting aside the dismissal order of the lower Court-Lok Adalat Committee and by passing order for recovery of the said amount for what is settled and after deducting what is paid by its execution. As such conclusion is fortified by the other expressions of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Sinha and Another (2008) 7 SCC 454 and State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh & Others (2008) 2 SCC 660 , that correctness of the award passed by the lok adalat can always be challenged invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also by a Division Bench of this Court in Karumanchi Venkaiah and Others v. State of A.P. rep. by Secretary Law, Hyderabad and Others 2016 (6) ALT 186 (DB) to set aside the lok adalat award for admission outside even can be a basis for decree on admission as laid down by this Court in C.R.P.No. 3055 of 2015 dated 04.11.2016 referring to several expression of the Apex Court including Surya Dev Rai, Shalini Shyam Shetty and Radhey Shyam supra. In fact as referred supra the amount of settlement mentioned in the memo of compromise not even in dispute when submitted to the Lok Adalat Committee in referring to the lok adalat. Once such is the case there is no basis to say matter settled only for Rs.65,000/- and same is not part payment out of total amount arrived of Rs.3,93,840/-. Once such is the case it is sheer mistaken outcome of the Lok Adalat Committee instead of recording same, recorded as if it is a criminal compounding offence. Thereby that mistake committed by the Lok Adalat Committee is liable to be rectified on the basis of actus curiae neminem gravabit. 11. Accordingly and in the result, the revision is allowed and the dismissal order of the lower Court is set aside and consequently the application is allowed and the same is rectified in passing award for recovery of Rs.3,93,840/- and the plaintiff by virtue of this order to execute the same by filing execution petition for what is due after deduction of the part payment made by cheque for an amount of Rs.65,000/-, for rest to suit claim. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. No costs.