JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Notices upon the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have been validly served. 2. This matter was adjourned on 10.03.2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 in spite of that nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and in view of that this petition is being heard in absence of opposite party Nos.1 to 3. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – I, Sahibganj, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the Civil Misc. Case No.06 of 2018 for execution of Award dated 08.07.2017 passed in Mediation Case No.165 of 2017 by Lok Adalat. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are plaintiff in Title Suit No.52 of 2007 which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners by the learned Court of Sub-Judge – III, Sahibganj. He submits that the respondents/defendants filed the Title Appeal No.48 of 2009 against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.52 of 2007 which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011. He submits that the petitioners had filed Execution Case No.07 of 2016 which was pending before the learned Court of Sr. Civil Judge-I, Sahibganj. He submits that the respondents preferred Second Appeal before this Court and status of second appeal is not known. The Execution Case No.07 of 2016 was referred to Mediator for resolving the dispute and the case before Mediator was registered as Mediation Case No.165 of 2017 and the parties amicably resolved their dispute on 07.07.2017. The report was referred to Lok Adalat and accordingly an award was passed by the Lok Adalat, Sahibganj on 08.07.2017 contained in Annexure-1. He submits that the suit was with regard to handover of peaceful possession and the compromise has reached to the effect that the peaceful possession in terms of the compromise will be provided. However, the award was not complied and in view of that the Civil Miscellaneous Case No.06 of 2018 was filed. He submits that the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the same by order dated 28.11.2022 on the ground that the provision of law is not disclosed. However, the award was not complied and in view of that the Civil Miscellaneous Case No.06 of 2018 was filed. He submits that the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the same by order dated 28.11.2022 on the ground that the provision of law is not disclosed. He submits that the award was already there of the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise and in view of that in light of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act the said award is executable in spite of that the learned Court has passed the said order. He further submits that if the correct provision of law was not mentioned due to wrong advice that cannot be a ground of rejecting the petition. He submits in view of that this petition has been filed and that order may kindly be set aside. 5. The Court has perused the materials on record and finds that admittedly the suit was instituted legally which was decided in favour of the petitioners. Title Appeal No.48 of 2009 was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011 and the Execution Case No.07 of 2016 was filed which was pending. Second appeal was preferred by the respondents, however the status of second appeal is not known. In the meantime, the execution case was sent for mediation and pursuant to mediation, the case before Mediator was registered as Mediation Case No.165 of 2017. Admittedly, the compromise was reached between the parties pursuant to that the Lok Adalat has passed the compromise Award dated 08.07.2017 and in this background, the miscellaneous case was filed. By the impugned order, the learned Court has dismissed the said miscellaneous case only on the ground that the correct provision of law is not disclosed. 6. It is well settled that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. 7. In light of Section 21 of Legal Service Authority Act, the award of Lok Adalat is a decree which can be executed. 8. 6. It is well settled that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. 7. In light of Section 21 of Legal Service Authority Act, the award of Lok Adalat is a decree which can be executed. 8. With the object of providing free legal aid, Government had, by Resolution dated 26 th September, 1980 appointed the “Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes” (CILAS) and in that after several deliberations it was felt necessary to constitute statutory legal service authorities at the National, State and District levels so as to provide for the effective monitoring of legal aid programmes and in that view of the matter the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. 9. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act speaks as under :- 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-free 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. 10. This aspect of the matter has already been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon versus C.D. Shaji reported in 2011 (8) Supreme 292 wherein at paragraph Nos.8 and 17, it has been held as under :- 8) Section 21 of the Act, which we have extracted above, contemplates a deeming provision, hence, it is a legal fiction that the "award" of the Lok Adalat is a decree of a civil court. In the case on hand, the question posed for consideration before the High Court was that "when a criminal case referred to by the Magistrate to a Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of civil court and thus executable by that court?" After highlighting the relevant provisions, namely, Section 21 of the Act, it was contended before the High Court that every award passed by the Lok Adalat has to be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such executable by that court. Unfortunately, the said argument was not acceptable by the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court has concluded that when a criminal case is referred to the Lok Adalat and it is settled at the Lok Adalat, the award passed has to be treated only as an order of that criminal court and it cannot be executed as a decree of the civil court. After saying so, the High Court finally concluded "an award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference of a criminal case by the criminal court as already concluded can only be construed as an order by the criminal court and it is not a decree passed by a civil court" and confirmed the order of the Principal Munsiff who declined the request of the petitioner therein to execute the award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference of a complaint by the criminal court. On going through the Statement of Objects and Reasons, definition of ‘Court’, ‘legal service’ as well as Section 21 of the Act, in addition to the reasons given hereunder, we are of the view that the interpretation adopted by the Kerala High Court in the impugned order is erroneous. 17) From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: 1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court. 2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. 2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. 3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. 4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court. 11. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the award of the Lok Adalat is a decree which is executable in light of Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act. Correct provision is not disclosed and that cannot be a ground of rejecting the petition and the power to execute is there, as such the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 is hereby set aside. 12. The matter is remitted back to the learned Court to proceed further in accordance with law for implementation of the award dated 08.07.2017 of the Lok Adalat.