ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. Petitioners pray for permission to carry out the amendment in the description of the item of the property mentioned in Plaint-B schedule as R.S.No.595/B instead of R.S.No.595 and consequently to order for necessary correction in the description of Item No.3 of Award 'A' schedule, appended to the Award dated 06.12.2019 in the Lok Adalath case No.4129/2019 in the matter of O.S.No.64 of 2016 on the file of 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioners' case succinctly is thus: (a) 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner, 3rd respondent is the husband of 4th respondent. 1st petitioner and 3rd respondent are brothers. (b) While so, respondents 3 and 4 filed O.S.No.64/2016 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties and sought for allotting Plaint-A schedule to the plaintiffs and B-Schedule to the defendants in the suit and half share to each in plaint C-schedule property to both parties. (c) Plaint-A schedule comprises of 4 items and one of the items i.e., Item No.1 in Plaint 'A' schedule is a godown in an extent of 820 Sq. Yds covered by R.S.No.595/B with Door No.16/105. Similarly, Plaint 'B' schedule is another godown in an extent of 824 Sq. Yds with door No.16/99 situated to the west of item No.1 of Plaint 'A' schedule. (d) While so, pending suit both parties entered into a compromise in the suit and the same was recorded before the Lok Adalath, Vijayawada in Lok Adalath case No.4192/2019 and an award was passed on 06.12.2019. As per the terms of the award the entire suit claim and suit schedule properties were divided into two parts, namely Award 'A' schedule and Award 'B' schedule. Award 'A' schedule was allotted to the petitioners herein and Award 'B' schedule was allotted to respondents 3 and 4 herein. (e) While so, Plaint 'B' schedule is shown as item No.3 of the award 'A' -schedule. The description of the said item No.3 was wrongly mentioned as R.S.No.595 instead of R.S.No.595/B in the plaint schedule as well as in the award, meaning thereby the sub-division number 'B' is missing in the plaint and in the award. (f) While filing the suit respondents 3 and 4 failed to give correct description of the said property though in the title deeds the said item property was correctly mentioned as RS No.595/B only. (f) While filing the suit respondents 3 and 4 failed to give correct description of the said property though in the title deeds the said item property was correctly mentioned as RS No.595/B only. The petitioners who were the defendants in the suit, unfortunately failed to notice the mistake in the above description of the property. (g) The further case of the petitioners is that as per terms of the award, the award has to be registered within three months from the date of award. Subsequently IA No.492/2022 was filed to condone the delay in getting the award registered due to COVID-19 Pandemic conditions and order was passed on 15.07.2022 permitting to forward the document for registration. At that time, the petitioners noticed the error crept in the sub-division number 'B' in item No.3 of the award 'A' schedule. Petitioners filed an affidavit seeking for rectification of the sub-division number in the survey number. However, the trial Court refused to entertain the correction stating that the award dated 06.12.2019 is final and request made by the petitioners cannot be entertained. Hence the writ petition. 3. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 served but they did not appear. 4. Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and opposed the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the description of item No.3 in Award 'A' schedule which is corresponding to Item No.1 in Plaint "B' schedule, mistake was crept in which is neither willful nor wanton and if the said wrong description is allowed to continue, the petitioners will be put to much hardship in future while dealing with the said property which is allotted to their share in the Lok Adalath award and therefore considering the mistake as a bona-fide one, this Court may show indulgence and pass necessary orders. 7. In oppugnation, learned standing counsel would submit that Lok Adalath award once passed will attain finality and no appeal is allowed and said award can be challenged only on the ground of fraud and as the fraud is not a ground here, the award cannot be challenged on the ground that some mistake was occurred in the description of the property. As a reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are in fact not challenging the Lok Adalath award, rather they are accepting the award but their humble prayer is only to consider their request and permit them to amend the description of the item No.3 of Award 'A' schedule which is corresponding to item No.1 in Plaint "B' schedule in the interest of justice. 8. Both the learned counsel relied upon several decisions which in our considered view are not much germane for deciding the writ petition. 9. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 10. POINT: On hearing both parties, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is true that as per Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an award passed under the said Act is final and no appeal is maintainable except on the ground of fraud. However, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, they are not questioning the legality or efficacy of the Lok Adalath award. However, petitioners' submission is that in describing one of the items of the property, a faux pas was made at the inceptional stage in the plaint which could not be recognized by either party at the beginning. The same error was crept in the Lok Adalath award, which, now, the petitioners propose to get rectified. We find that an amendment of the description of the property will not effect the very nature and core of the award and thereby such amendment will not militate against the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Essentially the suit is one for partition of the family properties between the brothers and pending the suit both of them settled their differences and came to an understanding in the matter of distribution of their properties. Accordingly, they submitted their case before Lok Adalath and an award was passed in tune with their settlement. What is now requested is only to correct the mis-description of the property to avoid future hardship to the petitioners. The prayer of the petitioners neither effects the interest of the respondents nor possibly the third parties. That is why, it appears, respondents 3 and 4 though served with notice remained absent. What is now requested is only to correct the mis-description of the property to avoid future hardship to the petitioners. The prayer of the petitioners neither effects the interest of the respondents nor possibly the third parties. That is why, it appears, respondents 3 and 4 though served with notice remained absent. In the light of these facts, having considered that the amendment sought for does not amount to challenging the Lok Adalath award but in a way strengthening the same for proper distribution of the properties and peaceful enjoyment, we deem it apposite to allow the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to move an application in O.S.No.64/2016 before the trial Court seeking for amendment of the description of Godown in Plaint 'B' schedule as R.S.No.595/B instead of R.S.No.595, in which case the trial court shall allow such amendment and consequent thereof, the petitioners are also permitted to move an application before 2nd respondent herein for similar amendment in the Lok Adalath Award dated 06.12.2019 in Lok Adalath Case No.4192/2019, in which case the 2nd respondent shall permit the petitioners to suitably amend the description of the aforesaid property in the award and issue amended certified copy of the award to the parties expeditiously. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed.