ORDER : (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the relief of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the decree dated 25.06.2022 passed in Megha Lok Adalath in O.S.No.101/2021 produced at Annexure-V and consequently to restore the suit in O.S.No.101/2021 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad and grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that; 3.1. The petitioner hails from a well known business family dealing with Automotive and a major Dealer of Ashok Leyland parts and was working as a Chief Executive Sales Officer for 14 Industries. 3.2. The petitioner came in contact with respondent No.1 and his family, as respondent No.1 showed interest in purchasing property belonging to the petitioner, more fully described in the suit. 3.3. As the respondent No.1 was retired professor, he could not mobilise the amount of sale agreement and he expressed his desperate need of house and requested to handover the house by assuring payment within 3 months, and further to gain confidence of the petitioner, he agreed to sell his property bearing Sy.No.217 and 218 measuring total 10 Acres situated at Yerikoppa Village. 3.4. The petitioner believing the words of respondent No.1, handed over his residential house and entered in to an Agreement of Sale by creating interest in the property and further he had executed General Power of Attorney on 19.07.2016 in favour of the petitioner as an alternate option of clearing all litigation over the property and for realisation of said property. 3.5. The respondent No.1 had induced the petitioner to make investment for development of the litigated landed properties belonging to him and the petitioner, believing the words of the respondent No.1 formed one Partnership under the name and Style "Earthly Solution." 3.6. Respondent No.1 and his son thought of developing their litigated properties through the petitioner and assured him those properties will become the assets of the Partnership Firm and assured returns on the investments made. Accordingly, both respondent No.1 and his son entered MOU. 3.7. Respondent No.1 and his son thought of developing their litigated properties through the petitioner and assured him those properties will become the assets of the Partnership Firm and assured returns on the investments made. Accordingly, both respondent No.1 and his son entered MOU. 3.7. The petitioner by taking hard earned money of his father, nearly more than Rupees 3.8 crores invested in the litigated land belonging to respondent No.1. 3.8. Respondent No.1 also had executed one more General Power of Attorney in respect of one of the litigated properties continuing the interest over the property as an assurance for the investment made by the petitioner and his family members and promised that, after litigation he will sell that property to the petitioner's family members mentioning the earlier General Power of Attorney and Agreement of Sale. 3.9. Respondent No.1 after receipt of sale consideration amount of two properties, he did not pay amount to the petitioner saying that he got his daughter and son's marriage and assured that, after receipt of the sale consideration of two properties, he will pay off his investments and his profit sharing amount and for assurance he executed one registered sale agreement and one registered General Power of Attorney with respect to property bearing Sy.No.217/2 and 218/2. 3.10. Further, respondent No.1 executed one more Special Power of Attorney in respect of property bearing Sy.No.217/1 and 281/1 total measuring 9 Acres 36 Guntas. It is also the averment that, respondents No.2 and 3 along with their mother are trying to create right over that property based on the concocted deed and requested the petitioner to clear off the property and realise the same and setoff the amount from the sale consideration amount. 3.11. The petitioner, as per the request of respondent No.1, has filed RTS Appeals in RTS Appeal No.6/2021 and RTS Appeal No.9/2021 in respect of properties bearing Sy.No.217/1 281/1 totally measuring 9 Acres 36 Guntas, by engaging an advocate Shadab H Yadwad. 3.12. Further, respondents Nos.2 and 3 have created agreement of sale in favour of respondents No.4 to 6 who are real estate agents. The petitioner, through the same advocate filed a suit in O.S No.101/2021 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Dharwad, seeking the relief of Declaration and Injunction. 3.13. It is contended that the petitioner's advocate has issued paper publication Kannada daily newspaper. The petitioner, through the same advocate filed a suit in O.S No.101/2021 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Dharwad, seeking the relief of Declaration and Injunction. 3.13. It is contended that the petitioner's advocate has issued paper publication Kannada daily newspaper. The respondents, colluding with the Advocate engaged by with the advocate engaged by the petitioner, in order to defeat petitioner's interest in the property and by playing fraud on the petitioner and court, without the knowledge of the petitioner, have filed an application seeking discharge of General Power of Attorney, knowing fully well that the petitioner is having 3 Irrevocable General Power of Attorney and One Special Power of Attorney coupled with the interest in the property and got referred the matter to the Lok Adalath and filed a Compromise Petition settling the matter for Rs.50 lakhs for the property worth 3.5 Crores. The Lok Adalath decreed the suit. 3.14. Hence, being aggrieved by the order of decree, the present petition is filed invoking the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner also produced the documents inter se between the petitioner and respondent No.1 i.e., Sale Agreement, Power of Attorneys executed on different dates, MOU as Annexure-A1 to AY1 and AY2 and also produced the decree as Annexure-V. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that; 4.1. The Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Sale Agreements and MOUs executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner clearly establishes that the interest is created in the property bearing Survey No.217 and 218 and by playing fraud behind the back of the petitioner, the respondents have obtained the impugned compromise decree. 4.2. The counsel also contended that, an application was filed in I.A.No.7 for discharge. Complaint is also given against the advocate who represented on behalf of the petitioner and only with an intention to cheat the petitioner, respondent No.1 obtained the decree. 4.3. It is also contended that respondents No.1 to 6 have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC on 06.06.2022 and respondent No.1 accepted Rs.14,00,000/- cash in open court and then the matter was referred to Megha Lok Adalath and compromise was entered before the Lok Adalath. Though the matter was settled out of the Court, but in Megha Lok Adalath, compromise decree was prolonged. 4.4. Though the matter was settled out of the Court, but in Megha Lok Adalath, compromise decree was prolonged. 4.4. It is contended that, respondent No.1 induced the petitioner for making investment in other properties for the development and also clear the obstructions in those properties and the petitioner believing the words of the first respondent, invested the money belonging to his father and family members and he developed the properties and played fraud on the court as well deceived the petitioner and the decree obtained is a fraudulent one and made with an intention to deceive the petitioner from the property right. 4.5. It is also contended that, the petitioner has paid Rs.20,00,000/- to respondent No.5 and Rs.25,00,000/- to respondent No.1 for settling their claims apart from huge investment made by the petitioner. 4.6. It is also vehemently contended that, no notice of discharge was given to the petitioner and fraud is played not only on the petitioner, but also on the court. 4.7. It is also contended that the property was sold to the tune of Rs.9.50 crores and in the statement of objections admitted regarding the transaction and hence this Court has to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 4.8. The counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 , wherein it is held that, the Lok Adalath cannot enter into an adversarial adjudication akin to a court of law and their functions relate purely to conciliation and must be based on compromise or settlement between the parties; in case no compromise or settlement can be arrived at, case record must be returned to the court from which it was received, for disposal by the said court in accordance with law. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph 12 of this judgment and would vehemently contend that this Court can exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4.9. He also relied upon the judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.63372/2012 (Smt. Akkubai Vs. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph 12 of this judgment and would vehemently contend that this Court can exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4.9. He also relied upon the judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.63372/2012 (Smt. Akkubai Vs. Shri. Venkatrao and Others) and contended that, if any compromise is entered between the parties before the Court and if the matter is referred to the Lok Adalath, an observation is made that this Court not only cannot be a silent spectator of this illegalities, it is the bounden duty of this Court to interfere with such illegal awards and set aside the same and restore the valuable rights of the immovable properties of the parties, which is taken away through the process of Lok Adalath. 4.10. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.103766/2018 (Smt. Renuka Vs. Sri. Ramanand and another), wherein also the relief is sought to quash the compromise decree dated 26.07.2014 in O.S.No.246/2014 and exercising the writ jurisdiction this Court quashed the same and guidelines are also issued regarding how to compromise the matter before the Lok Adalath. 4.11. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 02.02.2024, passed in MSA No.100010/2021 (Smt. Shantawwa Vs. Shri. Hanamant Bhimappa Bhajantri), wherein also this Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhargavi Constructions Vs.Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480 and other judgments, made a discussion with regard to the compromise decree and held that the only remedy available for the respondent, who is said to have cheated by impersonation and compromise decree came to be passed, is to approach the High Court in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in his arguments would vehemently contend that; 5.1. The sale deeds are executed on 28.08.2003 in respect of Survey No.217 measuring 10 acres 39 guntas and Survey No.218 measuring 8 acres 28 guntas and Annexures R1 and R2 establishes the sale deeds are executed and respondent No.1 had purchased the same through the Power of Attorney holder, that is only half portion and not entire extent. The sale deeds are executed on 28.08.2003 in respect of Survey No.217 measuring 10 acres 39 guntas and Survey No.218 measuring 8 acres 28 guntas and Annexures R1 and R2 establishes the sale deeds are executed and respondent No.1 had purchased the same through the Power of Attorney holder, that is only half portion and not entire extent. The documents at Annexures R3 and R4 establishes that respondents No.2 and 3 have purchased remaining half portion of the property. 5.2. The counsel also contended that, Annexures R5 and R6 are khata extracts and the Special Power of Attorney at Annexure-M executed in favour of the petitioner is not coupled with interest. The properties bearing Survey No.217/1 and 218/1 belongs to respondent No.1 and Power of Attorney and MOUs are not in respect of the disputed properties and the same is in respect of properties bearing Survey No.217/2 and 218/2. Respondent No.1 sold the property in terms of Annexure J3 and R7 sold the property in terms of Annexure J4. 5.3. The counsel also vehemently contend that, this petitioner is an attesting witness to the said sale deeds. Annexure-M - Special Power of Attorney, relied upon by the petitioner is only to prosecute the case and not for dealing with the property. The counsel also would vehemently contend that, Section 207 of the Contract Act applies and discharge application was also filed and the same was only a mere formality since respondent No.1 represented earlier through this petitioner in terms of Special Power of Attorney and the same is not coupled with interest and Section 202 of the Contract Act not applies. 5.4. The counsel also vehemently contended that, the discharge order was passed on 24.01.2021 and the matter was not immediately compromised as contended and the compromise was entered on 06.06.2022 and the same is not a fraud. 5.5. The counsel also would submit that, respondent No.1 filed the suit through the Power of Attorney holder and respondents No.2 and 3 are the defendants, and this petitioner is not having any locus to prosecute only in respect of survey No.217/1 and 218/1 and no records are produced with regard to the property in Survey No.217/1 and 218/1 and there is no sale agreement executed by respondents No.1 and MOUs also in respect of Survey No.217/1 and 218/1. 5.6. 5.6. The counsel also would vehemently contend that, the writ jurisdiction may be invoked only for limited grounds. The counsel would vehemently contend that, in Bhargavi Constructions‘s case (supra), they are the parties to the suit and non-party cannot file the writ petition. 5.7. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 14.06.2024 passed in RSA No.9/2018 (Sri. N. Umesha Vs. Smt. Bhagyamma and others) and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.18 of the said judgment, wherein this Court held that, if not a party to compromise decree, he can only file a separate suit. 5.8. The counsel also vehemently contended that, the fraud cannot be decided in this writ petition. The counsel also would submit that, the order of discharge passed on I.A.No.7 was not challenged. The compromise was entered in the year 2022 and writ petition is filed in the year 2024 and there is laches on the part of the petitioner. 5.9. The counsel would also contend that, Annexures R22 and R23 clearly disclose that the property is converted and technical approval is also obtained and layout is formed and sold 80% of plots and hence this Court cannot set aside the decree. 6. In reply to the arguments, counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that, the bifurcation was made only after the death and not cancelled and the delay in filing the writ petition is due to medical reasons for which records are also produced. The documents disclose investment and sale deed attested only when the sale deed was executed by the owners. 7. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the re-joinder filed against the statement of objections filed by respondent No.7. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the photographs which are produced along with the rejoinder for having developed the property by making investment by the petitioner at AE, AE1 to AE6 and also brought to the notice of this Court the discharge summary at Annexure-AF. 8. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the photographs which are produced along with the rejoinder for having developed the property by making investment by the petitioner at AE, AE1 to AE6 and also brought to the notice of this Court the discharge summary at Annexure-AF. 8. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also considering the grounds urged in the petition as well as the statement of objections and rejoinder, this Court has to look into the material on record to determine whether this Court can set aside the decree by exercising the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the petitioner as a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that a compromise was entered into between the original plaintiff along with the defendants. The records also disclose that, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid before the Court and thereafter the matter was referred to Lok Adalath, wherein a compromise was recorded and consequent upon the compromise entered into between the parties, decree is passed in terms of Annexure-V, which is sought to be set aside. The records which have been produced before this Court are the sale agreements, acknowledgement for having received money at Annexures A and A1, copies of sale agreement at Annexure-B, General Power of Attorney at Annexure-C, Partnership Deed at Annexure-E and copies of MOU and loan agreement at Annexures F and Q. The petitioner also relied upon accounts statement of his father for having paid money to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-H and the sale deeds at Annexures J, J1, J2, J3 and J4 and Irrevocable Power of Attorney executed on 27.07.2019 at Annexure-K, copies of the sale agreements at Annexure-L and L1, copy of the Special Power of Attorney dated 25.01.2021 at Annexure-M and on the basis of the same, suit was filed. No doubt these documents would be with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 10. It is also important to note that, an application was filed as per I.A.No.7 for discharge of Power of Attorney before the Trial Court. The main contention of the petitioner is that no notice was given to him before discharging the Power of Attorney. 10. It is also important to note that, an application was filed as per I.A.No.7 for discharge of Power of Attorney before the Trial Court. The main contention of the petitioner is that no notice was given to him before discharging the Power of Attorney. Having perused Annexure-M - Special Power of Attorney, the power is given to appoint advocates and to file a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the schedule property and appear before the different Courts at Dharwad and High Court or any Court, Lok Adalath and to obtain deeds i.e., in respect of 5 acres 21 guntas in respect of R.S.No.217/1 to the extent of 5 acres 21 guntas and item No.20 in respect of 4 acres 15 guntas of R.S.No.218/1. The contention of respondents is that, that is only a Special Power of Attorney to do particular acts and not transferred any interest in respect of the suit schedule property. However, the petitioner has relied upon other documents of sale agreement and Power of Attorney. It is also not in dispute that the compromise was entered inter se between the original plaintiff and defendants. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that, fraud has been played on the court as well as the petitioner in spite of the petitioner has invested money and discharged him behind the back of the petitioner, without notice and compromised. 11. The counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon several orders passed by this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel particularly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jalour Singh’s case (supra). Having perused this judgment, in paragraph No.12 it is held that, where an award is made by Lok Adalath in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalath), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalath does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalath. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. In such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits. 12. In the case on hand, no doubt the petitioner represented the original plaintiff before the Court as a Power of Attorney holder and an application was filed to discharge the Power of Attorney holder. Admittedly, the said order was not challenged in this writ petition and only challenge is made regarding compromise entered into between the parties. The contention of the petitioner is that, in order to deceive the right of the petitioner, a compromise was entered and fraud is played against the petitioner as well as against the Court. Now this Court has to examine whether the same can be questioned before this Court with regard to fraud in a writ petition. 13. No doubt in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Jalour Singh’s case (supra), it is held that it may be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too on very limited grounds. Now the question before this Court is whether the fraud as alleged in the petition can be decided in a writ jurisdiction and the same is a limited ground. 14. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Now the question before this Court is whether the fraud as alleged in the petition can be decided in a writ jurisdiction and the same is a limited ground. 14. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 566 , wherein it is held, if it is a consent decree, the modes of recourse available against that is, no appeal is maintainable against the said decree in view of specific bar under Section 96(3) of CPC; no appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording or refusing to record a compromise, in view of the deletion of Order XLIII Rule 1(m) of CPC; the consent decree can only be set aside on an application made under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXIII of CPC, on the ground that there was no compromise. A discussion was also made with regard to Section 96(3) of CPC, Order XLIII Rule 1(m) of CPC and also no independent suit can be filed for setting aside the compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of bar contained in Rule 3-A and further held that consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23 CPC. This judgment is passed in the year 2006 itself and the said judgment is even prior to the judgment of Jalour Singh’s case (supra) in 2008, which is a Larger Bench judgment. But the principle laid down in the Larger Bench is not pertaining to the issue involved between the parties in the present case on hand and also the Larger Bench held it is for the limited grounds if no compromise and if consent between the parties. 15. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Rajanna Vs. 15. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Rajanna Vs. S. R. Venkataswamy and Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 706 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that, considering Order XXIII Rule 3A compromise decree and party disputing the lawfulness of compromise, the Court which passed the decree alone can consider the lawfulness of compromise and it cannot direct parties to file separate suit. The party on rejection of the suit for setting aside the compromise decree applying to the court to pass decree to consider lawfulness of compromise, the rejection of such application with a direction to a party to pursue its suit is against the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC and in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court also discussed the judgment in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2628 . 16. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kasturevva Hemappa Basureddy Vs. Smt. Jayashree W/o.Late Basavareddy Basureddy reported in AIR 2015 Kar 190 , wherein this Court referring to Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A of CPC and also Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while considering the compromise decree held that, the party disputing about awareness of contents of compromise and decree is alleged to be fraudulent, validity/lawfulness of decree can be determined only by Court which passed the decree and the writ petition assailing the compromise decree is not maintainable. 17. This Court also would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs.Anirudh Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically discussed Section 96(3) as we well as Order XXIII Rules 3 and 3A and Order XLIII Rule 1- A(2) of CPC and also discussed with regard to the compromise decree and clarified the law regarding independent suit filed by stranger to compromise challenging lawfulness of such compromise decree and non-maintainability of separate suit challenging the compromise decree, the person questioning lawfulness of compromise must approach the same court which recorded compromise. Even it is held that the civil proceedings challenging the legality of compromise is not maintainable and such strangers, who are not party to compromise, would not have cause of action to file separate suit to challenge the legality of the compromise. The law is very clear with regard to even a person questioning the lawfulness of the compromise must approach the very same court which recorded the compromise. The Hon’ble Apex Court also discussed the earlier judgment in the case of Pushpa Devi (supra) and R. Rajanna (supra). 18. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sree Surya Developers and Promotes Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 736 , wherein also the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the scope of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC and held that an independent suit challenging the compromise/consent decree on ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful and further held that the proper remedy for challenging the compromise/consent decree on the ground that it is not lawful, reiterated, is to approach the same court, which had passed the compromise/consent decree, which the plaintiff in the said case had already done by filing an appropriate application and said application, held to be decided in accordance with law, though the plaint in the suit in question had been rightly rejected. 19. This Court also would like to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of K.Srinivasappa and Others Vs. M. Mallamma and Others reported in ILR 2023 KAR 1277, wherein also it is held that, it is settled position of law that where the allegation of fraud is made against a party to an agreement, the said allegation would have to be proved strictly, in order to avoid the agreement on the ground that fraud was practiced on a party in order to induce such party to enter into the agreement. Similarly, the terms of a compromise decree cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set aside the compromise decree in the present case. Similarly, the terms of a compromise decree cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set aside the compromise decree in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court also while discussing Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, equates an award of the Lok Adalath to a decree of a Civil Court and imputes an element of finality to an award of compromise passed by the Lok Adalath. When the Lok Adalath disposes cases in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit, after following principles of equity and natural justice, every such award of the Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties. 20. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also the contention of the petitioner’s counsel and also the judgments relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel and particularly the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jalour Singh’s case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, in the said case, in paragraph No.12 it is held that, normally a proper Lok Adalath award is final and binding and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court and no appeal lies against it to any court and it is specifically held that, it can be challenged on very limited grounds. The petitioner has not made out any limited ground challenging the same before this Court invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The very specific case of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondent No.1 has played fraud on the Court as well as the petitioner. When the said allegation is made, the same cannot be questioned in a writ petition, that too a disputed facts of fraud cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the judgments which have been referred by this Court, it is very clear that the party who alleges fraud and questions the lawfulness of the compromise has to approach the very same Court as held throughout from 2006 onwards till date, as I have discussed in detail above. 21. In the judgments which have been referred by this Court, it is very clear that the party who alleges fraud and questions the lawfulness of the compromise has to approach the very same Court as held throughout from 2006 onwards till date, as I have discussed in detail above. 21. It is also important to note that the main grievance of the petitioner that he was the Power of Attorney holder and he himself has filed the suit on behalf of respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court and also there is no dispute in terms of Annexure-M the Special Power of Attorney and the said Power of Attorney is given for the specific purpose on behalf of the respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. As rightly contended by the counsel for the respondents, the same is not coupled with any interest and in view of the counsel for the petitioner relying upon several documents of sale agreement and Irrevocable Power of Attorney, both registered and unregistered and that he had invested money and improved the property, the said fact also cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and he has got the option to challenge the very discharge order passed by the Trial Court and the same has not been challenged and only sought for an order to set aside the decree passed in Lok Adalath. When the complicated issues and disputed issues involved, this Court cannot exercise Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is only for limited grounds. The case of the petitioner is that, he had entered into MOU sale agreement and also Power of Attorney and therefore those documents interest has been transferred in his favour. When such being the case, he has got option either to approach the very same Court, since his allegation is that, fraud is played on the Court as well as the petitioner or even he can pursue his remedy based on the document of sale agreement, Power of Attorney, since he claims interest on those documents, inclusive of the MOU. 22. All these disputed facts have to be considered by the very same court in which the decree has been passed or the petitioner has to seek for appropriate remedy before the Trial Court in view of the contentions raised in this writ petition. 22. All these disputed facts have to be considered by the very same court in which the decree has been passed or the petitioner has to seek for appropriate remedy before the Trial Court in view of the contentions raised in this writ petition. Even the document of General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and MOU were not there before the Trial Court while considering the matter and other documents which have been annexed along with this petition have been placed before this Court only seeking the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence I do not find any merit in this writ petition to set aside the decree passed in Megha Lok Adalath in terms of Annexure-V. However, the other prayer is also sought to restore the original suit. For seeking the relief of restoring the original suit, the petitioner can file necessary application before the very same Court and urge the grounds to set aside the decree, if according to him, the same was obtained by fraud. 23. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is dismissed. ii. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the very same Court by filing necessary application in view of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also given liberty to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum as he contended that he has got the interest over the property, in terms of the documents which are relied upon before this Court.