ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned I Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, in I.A. No. 49 of 2015 in O.S. No. 3 of 2015 dated 03.07.2015, wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/ defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) and refused to reject the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The case of the petitioners/defendants before the trial Court in brief is that respondent filed suit against them for specific performance of contract of sale in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 11.05.2007 with false allegations and the suit is not maintainable. It is the contention of the petitioners that first petitioner is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and respondent/plaintiff filed petition before Lok Adalat, Machilipatnam, vide PLC No. 301 of 2008, wherein they received notice and then himself, third petitioner and respondent/plaintiff have arrived at compromise and accordingly, Lok Adalat Bench at Machilipatnam passed an Award on 31.10.2008. They alleged that as per Condition No. 4 of the Award, respondent/plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) to the first petitioner towards the balance sale consideration on or before 05.12.2008 in cash and then he has to execute registered sale deed in favour of the respondent and then first petitioner has to handover possession of item No. 1 of plaint schedule to the respondent on or before 05.12.2008. The main contention of the petitioners is that respondent failed to comply Condition No. 4 of the Award and failed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- on or before 05.12.2008 to the first petitioner and thereafter, a joint memo filed before Lok Adalat Bench, Machilipatnam, on 06.12.2008 stating that “respondent herein failed to do registration of petitioners property i.e. plaint schedule property on or before 05.12.2008, because of that reason, the respondent herein has no right to ask to return the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- on or before 05.12.2008 to the first petitioner and thereafter, a joint memo filed before Lok Adalat Bench, Machilipatnam, on 06.12.2008 stating that “respondent herein failed to do registration of petitioners property i.e. plaint schedule property on or before 05.12.2008, because of that reason, the respondent herein has no right to ask to return the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- towards advance amount and hence, the first petitioner herein has the right to sell away his property (item No. 1 and 2) to anybody.” They have stated that once Lok Adalat has passed an Award, respondent has no right to file any suit for relief of specific performance, which was filed by the respondent with an evil intention to get money and to harass them. They pray to reject the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter before the trial Court denying the averments made in the affidavit of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that after disposal of P.L.C. No. 301 of 2008 on 31.10.2008, first petitioner has represented to her that he would obtain permission from competent Court to sell the property of minors, but first petitioner failed to get any permission inspite of repeated demands made by her and then she issued notice to the petitioners and filed the suit. She submits that document dated 06.12.2008, which is a joint memo, is not a genuine document and validity and legality of the said document has to be decided in the main suit during the course of trial and there are no grounds to reject the plaint. She prays to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would mainly submit that there is no cause of action to file a fresh suit. Plaint filed by the respondent shall be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He would further submit that once Lok Adalat passed an Award at the instance of both parties, there is no scope for any further litigation and the suit filed by the respondent seeking similar relief, which was already granted by passing an award in the Lok Adalat at Machilipatnam, is not at all maintainable. He would further submit that once Lok Adalat passed an Award at the instance of both parties, there is no scope for any further litigation and the suit filed by the respondent seeking similar relief, which was already granted by passing an award in the Lok Adalat at Machilipatnam, is not at all maintainable. He argued that the respondent/ plaintiff not challenged the award passed by the Lok Adalat and trial Court cannot treat the Award of the Lok Adalat as agreement between the parties to entertain the suit for specific performance. He relied on the following precedent law: Yachamaneni Chandramohan Rao and Another vs. Edmala Narsamma @ Narsavva and Others, 2015 (5) ALT 611 wherein this Court explained grounds on which plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition and reject the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that though the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is a decree when there is a dispute with regard to filing of alleged joint memo dated 06.12.2008 before District Legal Services Authority, Krishna, respondent can file a suit for specific performance of a contract on fresh cause of action, which rightly observed by learned trial Judge. He would further submit that whether suit is barred by any law and effect of Award passed by Lok Adalat can only be decided at the time of trial, but not in a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He relied on following precedent law: 1. H.S. Deekshit and Another vs. M/s. Metropoli Overseas Limited and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 703 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court explained scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that when considering the petition filed for rejection of plaint, averments in the plaint alone are to be examined and no other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. 2. Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that the averments in the plaint have to be taken into consideration while considering the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, not the pleas taken in the written statement. 2. Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that the averments in the plaint have to be taken into consideration while considering the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, not the pleas taken in the written statement. It is also held that Courts can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit before conclusion of the trial. 7. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: “Whether the order under challenge is sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?” 8. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under: “11. Rejection of plaint: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action. (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court explained the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and also stage of invoking the said provision in the decisions relied on by both sides. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court explained the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and also stage of invoking the said provision in the decisions relied on by both sides. There is no dispute with regard to ratio laid down in the above referred decisions, which are rendered on different facts and circumstances of each case. 10. Now, it would also be beneficial to quote Section 20 and 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, which reads as under: “20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats: (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19: (i)(a) the parties thereof agree. (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima-facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. (ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any cither law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court. (7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1). “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.” 11. As per regulation 12, 17 of Legal Services Authorities Act (Lok Adalats) Regulations 2009, which prescribes mode of referring the matter to Lok Adalat at pre-litigation case and regulations 10, 12 and 13 explains the role of Lok Adalat while drawing of the Award which is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties under the guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute legal services authorities for providing free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice were not denied to any of citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The system of Lok Adalat, which is a innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, as a proof of effective resolving the disputes in spirit of conciliation outside Courts. 12. Section 19 of the Act provides the statutory frame work on the basis of which Lok Adalats are to be organized. Specifically, Section 19 (5) provides that Lok Adalats shall have the jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties in respect of matter (i) pending before a Court, for which Lok Adalat is organized or (ii) not pending before a Court, for which the Lok Adalat is organized but falling within its jurisdiction. The proviso notes that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Section 20 of the Act outlines the type of cases whose cognizance can be taken by the Lok Adalats. Section 20 (1) provides that when the case is pending before a Court in accordance with Section 19 (5) (i), the Court can refer the case to a Lok Adalat for settlement if the parties agree, one of the party makes an application or the Court is satisfied that the matter is appropriate for a Lok Adalat. The proviso stipulates that in scenario, the Court shall only make its decision after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is important to note that Section 20 (2) provides that when an Authority or a Committee organizing a Lok Adalat receives an application (in accordance with Section 19 (5)(ii), it shall determine whether referred it to the Lok Adalat. The proviso stipulates that it shall only make its determination after giving parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 20 (3) indicates that when a case is referred to a Lok Adalat under Section 20 (1) (2), it shall proceed to dispose of the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. The proviso stipulates that it shall only make its determination after giving parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 20 (3) indicates that when a case is referred to a Lok Adalat under Section 20 (1) (2), it shall proceed to dispose of the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. Section 20 (4) provides that in disposing of a case, the Lok Adalat shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. When the Lok Adalat is unable to reach the settlement between the parties and no Award is made in respect of pre-litigation case, advise the party to approach the Court if Lok Adalat received petition under Section 20(2) (in accordance with Section 20 (6). It is also pertinent to note that Section 21 stipulates that the Award of 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, 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. The said provision makes it clear that intention of passing of an Award after arriving the settlement to resolve the dispute once for all without any further litigation. When Section 21 stipulates that Award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree as per Section 2 (2) of CPC, the “decree” means “the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or an of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include: (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order. (b) any order of dismissal for default. A preliminary decree is when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. 13. (b) any order of dismissal for default. A preliminary decree is when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. 13. On perusal of above definition of decree in CPC, which makes it clear that it is formal expression of an adjudication in so far as that case, which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or an of the matters in controversy. 14. As per Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the Lok Adalat or permanent Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If the compromise or settlement reached, the Lok Adalat shall issue its Award and it is deemed to be equivalent to the decree, against which no appeal shall lie. 15. In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent/plaintiff approached District Legal Services Authority, Krishna, by filing P.L.C. No. 301 of 2008 wherein petitioners herein were shown as respondents in pre-litigation case, in which, Lok Adalat has been constituted and award is passed under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, which is extracted as under: “AWARD Petitioner and Respondents are present. At the intervention of the members of Lok Adalat, this matter is settled with the following conditions: (1) The petitioner and 1st respondent agreed that the value of the schedule property in Item No. 1 and 2 in an extent of 1545 sq. yards is Rs. 81,00,000/- (Rupees eighty one lakhs only). (2) Item No. 1 of schedule property consists of Asbestos sheet roof house with vacant site with Door No. 20-516-2 in an extent of 801 sq. yards within the following boundaries: East: Gogineni Sri Ranganayakamma Gari site. South: Sk.Silar Bebi and Mahaboob site. West: House and vacant site of Vemulapalli Krishna Mohan. North: Cosmopolitan club. (3) Item No. 2 of schedule property is a terraced residential house bearing Door No. 20-516-1 in an extent of 741 sq. yards within the following boundaries: East: 1st schedule property. South: House of Dasari Harichandra Rao. West: Municipal Road. North: Cosmopolitan club. (4) It is agreed that in the event of petitioner paying to first respondent Rs. (3) Item No. 2 of schedule property is a terraced residential house bearing Door No. 20-516-1 in an extent of 741 sq. yards within the following boundaries: East: 1st schedule property. South: House of Dasari Harichandra Rao. West: Municipal Road. North: Cosmopolitan club. (4) It is agreed that in the event of petitioner paying to first respondent Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) towards balance sale consideration on or before 05.12.2008 in cash only, the 1st respondent has to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or to her nominee at the cost of the petitioner and the 1st respondent has to vacate and hand over possession of item No. 1 of schedule property on or before 05.12.2008. (5) If the petitioner fails to comply condition No. 4 i.e. payment of balance of sale consideration to 1st respondent on or before 05.12.2008, the petitioner has to forego the advance consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/- and also claim over the total property in pursuance of the earlier sale agreements dated. (6) The petitioner also looses claim for execution of registered sale deeds in respect of Item No. 2 of the schedule property if the petitioner did not obtain registered sale deed by paying the balance consideration in respect of item No. 1 of the schedule property. (7) If the petitioner complies in obtaining the registered sale deed for item No. 1 of the schedule property by paying the balance consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- on or before 05.12.2008, thereafter, the petitioner has to pay in cash Rs. 41,00,000/- to the 1st respondent on or before 05.05.2009 to the first respondent and obtain registered sale deed for item No. 2 of the schedule property also. (8) Respondent has to vacate the terraced building in item No. 2 on or before 05.05.2009 and hand it over to the petitioner. (9) If the petitioner complies in payment of the balance of consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- to 1st respondent on or before 05.05.2009, the 1st respondent has to register item No. 2 of the schedule property in favour of the petitioner or her nominee. (10) If the 1st respondent fails to comply with regard to registration of sale deeds in respect of items 1 and 2 of schedule property, the petitioner is at liberty to execute the Award. Accordingly, Award is passed.” 16. (10) If the 1st respondent fails to comply with regard to registration of sale deeds in respect of items 1 and 2 of schedule property, the petitioner is at liberty to execute the Award. Accordingly, Award is passed.” 16. The Lok Adalat bench constituted under Section 19 of Legal Services Authorities Act, passed the above award as per the settlement arrived by the parties. There is also condition No. 10 of the award that if the first petitioner fails to comply with regard to registration of sale deeds in respect of Item Nos. 1 and 2 of schedule property, the respondent/petitioner is at liberty to execute the award. Admittedly, respondent herein without filing any execution petition in pursuance of terms arrived at before the Lok Adalat as mentioned in the award chosen to file separate suit for similar relief by adding minor daughter of the first petitioner as one of the defendant along with respondent shown in the Lok Adalat Award. The relief which respondent now seeking by filing suit for specific performance is already granted to her as per the award passed by Lok Adalat in P.L.C. No. 301 of 2008. The award passed by Lok Adalat is deemed to be the decree against which no appeal shall lie. It is also not the contention of the respondent that petitioners have obtained award by playing fraud on her. The learned trial Judge entertained the suit and rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that as respondent is disputing joint memo dated 06.12.2008 under which her rights have been seized, it gives fresh cause of action to file a suit for similar relief. The learned trial Judge failed to consider that respondent not sought for declaration in respect of joint memo dated 06.12.2008 and filed suit for specific performance of a contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 11.05.2007. As rightly contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner, award passed by Lok Adalat wherein relief of specific performance is granted to the respondent/plaintiff with conditions and question is whether any party violated the conditions which will not raise a new cause of action to file fresh suit for similar relief. When once the Lok Adalat passed an award, which is equivalent to the decree, again respondent cannot file suit for similar relief, which is not permissible under law. When once the Lok Adalat passed an award, which is equivalent to the decree, again respondent cannot file suit for similar relief, which is not permissible under law. If relief which respondent/plaintiff sought in the plaint was already granted and award was passed as per compromise arrived at by both parties, no fresh cause of action would arose to file fresh suit for similar relief, which learned trial Judge failed to consider and only considered the grounds on which plaint can be rejected invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC. When Lok Adalat award is equivalent to the decree, and decree conclusively determines the dispute between the parties, there is no scope for further litigation again agitating for the same relief. The respondent shall bound to obey the terms arrived in as per the Award. The suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of a contract inspite of Award passed by Lok Adalat in P.L.C. No. 301 of 2008 is barred under Order VII Rules (a) and (d) of CPC. Therefore, orders passed by learned trial Judge dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners are not sustainable either in law or on facts, which needs interference of this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. The Original Suit No. 3 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, is hereby rejected. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. The interim orders if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated.