JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner herein/plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 102/1 of 2017, challenges the order recorded thereon, on 22.04.2018, by the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, whereunder, on anvil of a statement, rendered by the learned counsel, for the plaintiff qua hence the lis engaging the litigating parties rather being compromised, hence, strived for permission, being granted, for, the apposite suit being withdrawn, hence, in consonance therewith, constrained the making, of, an order dismissing the plaintiff's suit hence as withdrawn. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved plaintiff/petitioner herein, has made a challenge, upon, the statement rendered, on behalf of the plaintiff, by one Munish Sharma, Advocate, (I) on the score that the afore Munish Sharma, Advocate, was never engaged, as, counsel, for, prosecuting the plaintiff's suit, and, concomitantly, was, disabled to render any statement, before the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, qua the lis engaging the parties being comprised, and, the requisite permission for withdrawing the suit, being rather espoused or granted. (ii) For want of appearance of the plaintiff before the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, on 22.04.2018, and, also for want of, the, tendering, therebefore, of, the compromise deed recorded inter se the contesting litigants, rather rendering the afore order being ingrained with a vice of misrepresentation, and, fraud, and it being amenable, for, being set aside. 3. Naturally, only upon, evident proof, being adduced, vis-a-vis, the afore espousal reared before this Court, rather would enable this Court to make interference(s) with the impugned award, rendered by the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, as dehors the afore grounds being validly proven, hence the award of the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, acquires statutory binding force, and, conclusivity, and, hence, is neither challengeable nor interfereable by this Court. 4. 4. The afore initial ground reared by the petitioner, that she, had never engaged one Munish Sharma, as her counsel, to prosecute the apposite civil suit, is, prima facie rid of truth, (a) as, a perusal of the power of attorney, makes evident upsurging qua the signatures of one Munish Sharma, being borne therein, and, along with signatures of one Suresh Verma, Advocate, (b) and, with the petitioner not making any echoing in the petition, that, her signatures which are also borne in the apposite power of attorney, not being appended in contemporaneity, with, both the afore counsel also appending their signatures thereon, (c) and, hence, the want of afore echoings, may not rear any inference qua one Munish Sharma, Advocate, signing the power of attorney, behind the back of the petitioner herein, (d) rather it galvanizes a conclusion qua the petitioner engaging both Munish Sharma, and, Suresh Verma, Advocates as her counsel, to prosecute the apposite civil suit. Concomitantly also both the afore counsel, being capacitated, to, render hence statement(s) before the Court, and, also before the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, which rendered the impugned order, on a statement made before it, by Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate. 5. Be that as it may, nowat, the further contention raised by the petitioner herein (i) that for want of hers, hence, recording a statement before the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, also for want of a compromise deed being tendered before the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, thereupon, the apposite statement rather in consonance wherewith, hence the impugned verdict, stand(s), recorded by Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, are/is, both rather wanting, in, any aura of legality. However, the afore submission also cannot be accepted, as, upon the apposite lis, prior to 24.4.2018, inasmuch, as on 23.03.2018, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Theog, had ordered for its listing, before the National Loki Adalat, on 24.04.2018, (ii) visibly hence a period of one month elapsed since the trial court ordering for listing, the matter, before the National Lok Adalat, and, the impugned verdict being recorded, (iii) and, when the plaintiff/petitioner herein does not make any echoing, in the instant petition, that, the conjoint statement, of, the learned counsel(s) appearing for the contesting parties, and, rendered on 23.03.2018, wherethrough they strived for the matter being listed before the National Lok Adalat, given the lis being compromised inter se the contesting parties, (iv) rather being rendered without any intimation, to her or without her consent, (v) and, also when the petitioner herein, reiteratedly does not, rear any articulation that the counsel concerned, on 23.3.2018, and, besides prior thereto, and, in the interregnum from 23.3.2018 and, 24.2.2018, inasmuch, as either Shri Munish Sharma, Advocate, or Sh. Suiresh Verma, Advocate not making any apt correspondence(s), with her, hence, unfolding therein qua theirs/his asking her or hers thereafter meteing or not meteing any instructions, to the afore counsel, qua hers entering into any compromise with the defendant, vis-a-vis, the lis engaging them, (iv) whereas, the afore echoings were necessarily required, for hers being rather validly bestowed, with any leverage to contend, that, the apposite statement recorded, on 22.4.2018, and, in concurrence wherewith, the impugned verdict, was recorded, rather being gripped with a vice of misrepresentation or fraud, (v) emanating from one Munish Sharma, Advocate without any settlement occurring inter se her, and, the defendant, his rather making a statement qua the lis being compromised inter se the contesting parties. Consequently, hence, wants thereof, fillip an inference, that one Munish Sharma, was purveyed the requisite information by the plaintiff, to, make the apposite statement before the Chairman, National Lok Adalat, Theog, and, the further corollary thereof is qua the impugned verdict being validly made, given, its bearing concurrence therewith. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.