ORDER : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Considering the nature of the impugned order and the order proposed to be passed, the notice to the respondent is dispensed with, however, the interest of the unrepresented respondent would be kept in view. 3. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed challenging the docket order dated 17.07.2025 passed in E.A.No.70 of 2012 in E.P.No.44 of 2012 in O.S.No.109 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. The docket order dated 17.07.2025 reads as under: “Heard and perused the record. The main execution petition is filed for execution of LokAdalath Award. The present EA is filed to hold the award is null and void and unenforceable on the ground of playing fraud against the petitioner herein. Whereas the main EP is filed for execution of the Lok Adalath Award, as the petitioner herein sought for the said Award null and void and unenforceable on the ground of playing fraud towards him, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted to determine the real question in controversy. Unless the respective parties adduce their respective evidence the real question in controversy shall not be determined. Hence the petitioner is directed to adduce his evidence. For evidence of petitioner call on 23.07.2025.” 4. Plaintiff - Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, Vijayawada (in short "Society?) represented by its Secretary, V.Kameswara Rao filed O.S.No.109 of 2001 against Boyapati Srinivasa Apparao, which was dismissed on 05.04.2007. The society filed A.S.No.128 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District Judge's Court, Vijayawada. The matter was settled before Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat case No.1890 of 2011 vide award dated 29.09.2011 under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, in the following terms: “ AWARD 1. The appeal in A.S.No.128/07 is dismissed as withdrawn confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.109 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawda. 2. The appellant shall not agitate the decree passed in O.S.No.109/2001 on the file of the second Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawada in any manner before any forum. 3. The appeal in A.S.No.128/07 is dismissed as withdrawn confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.109 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawda. 2. The appellant shall not agitate the decree passed in O.S.No.109/2001 on the file of the second Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Vijayawada in any manner before any forum. 3. The appellant handed over the possession over an extent of Acres 5.10 cents in NTS No.13, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada to the respondent and his family members along with structures therein and the keys of the locks of the above said premises are handed over to the respondent and his family members before the lok adalat today. 4. The respondent accord license to the appellant to run classes in the existing sheds without any changes / modifications till 31.03.2012. 5. The appellant shall remove their movable properties like furniture and fittings by 31.03.2012, without any notice in writing, failing which the respondent is entitled to remove the same without any notice. 6. The respondent is further entitled to seek the assistance of court, as the circumstances warrants, to remove the movables & fittings etc., in the due process of law by filing the execution petition. 7. In view of the settlement the respondent paid an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (nine lakhs) to the appellant by pay order No.051930 HDFC bank. 8. The appellant undertake not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings either against respondent and his family members in any manner. 9. All the disputes remaining unsettled if any whether pending or to be initiated shall be treated as null & void. 10. The appellant is entitled for refund of court fees paid in appeal. Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent of the terms of Award.” 5. The Society filed W.P.No.27867 of 2011 assailing the award dated 29.09.2011 in Lok Adalat Case NO.1890 of 2011. The Co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 17.02.2012 dismissed the writ petition holding that for the reasons recorded in the judgment, the writ petition as instituted was not maintainable as it was not properly presented as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Illachi Devi v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India, (2003) 8 SCC 413 and Rule 8(1)(f) of the Society Rules, as also that the award of the Lok Adalat was unassailable when the award had been acted upon. 6. The Society filed SLP (Civil) No.7825 of 2012, which was dismissed by an order dated 19.03.2012 granting leave to withdraw the writ petition and with liberty to avail other appropriate remedies. The order dated 19.03.2012 reads as under: “After arguing the case for some time, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition filed before the High Court with liberty to avail other appropriate remedies. Though unusual, we accept the request of the learned senior counsel and grant leave to the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition No.27867 of 2011 with liberty in terms of the prayer made. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed.” 7. Other W.P.No.28057 of 2012 & W.P.(SR).No.138912 of 2014 were also filed by V.Kameswara Rao, Secretary of the Society and G.Prajapathi Rao challenging the same award dated 29.09.2011, to quash the same and to restore appeal suit No.128 of 2007 to the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench by judgment dated 23.9.2014 allowed W.P.No.28057 of 2012 setting aside the award dated 29.09.2011 observing that the same was not an award within the meaning of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In view of the said order it was further observed that no orders were required to be passed, in W.P.(Sr).No.138912 of 2014, which was closed. The operative part in paras-39 & 40 of the judgment dated 23.09.202 reads as under: “39. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside as it is not an "Award? within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act, 1987 and the Regulations made thereunder. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.28057 of 2012 is allowed setting aside the impugned Award. 40. Writ Petition (SR) No.138912 of 2014 is filed to set aside the self – sale award. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petition No.28057 of 2012, no orders are required to be passed in the Writ Petition (SR) No.138912 of 2014 and accordingly it is closed.” 9. Boyapati Srinivasa Appa Rao (petitioner herein), the defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2001 preferred Civil Appeal Nos.2665-2666/2016 challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.28057 of 2012 and WP(SR).No.138912 of 2014. Boyapati Srinivasa Appa Rao (petitioner herein), the defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2001 preferred Civil Appeal Nos.2665-2666/2016 challenging the orders passed in W.P.No.28057 of 2012 and WP(SR).No.138912 of 2014. The Civil Appeals were dismissed as infructuous as the writ petitions against which the Civil Appeals were filed were dismissed as withdrawn by V.Kameswara Rao and G.Prajapathi Rao. 10. The order dated 03.06.2025 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil appeals reads as under: “Application for discharge of Advocate-on-Record is allowed. These appeals arise out of the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 28057/2012 and Writ Petition (SR) No.138912/2014. Respondents, namely, V Kameswara Rao and G. Prajapathi Rao, who were the writ petitioners before the High Court in the aforestated two writ petitions have filed affidavit(s) before this Court praying that they may be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions itself. Respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, had also preferred Writ Petition No. 27867/2011 for the similar relief(s) before the High Court. When the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, preferred a special leave petition, that is, SLP (C) No. 7825/2012, which came up for hearing on 19.03.2012. On the said date, respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, prayed for permission to withdraw Writ Petition No. 27867/2011. The prayer was found unusual, but this Court accepted the request and permitted respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, to withdraw Writ Petition No. 27867/2011 with liberty to avail other appropriate remedies. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, would object to the prayer made by respondents, namely, V Kameswara Rao and G. Prajapathi Rao, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petitions itself. However, as the similar prayer made by respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, was allowed by this Court, it does not behove respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, to object such a prayer. Accordingly, we permit the respondents, namely, V Kameswara Rao and G. Prajapathi Rao, to withdraw their respective writ petitions, that is, Writ Petition No. 28057/2012 and Writ Petition (SR) No. 138912/2014. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn and consequently, the present appeals are dismissed as infructuous. As stated above, Mr. Accordingly, we permit the respondents, namely, V Kameswara Rao and G. Prajapathi Rao, to withdraw their respective writ petitions, that is, Writ Petition No. 28057/2012 and Writ Petition (SR) No. 138912/2014. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn and consequently, the present appeals are dismissed as infructuous. As stated above, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, while objecting to the withdrawal of the writ petitions has prayed for liberty to revive the civil proceedings, which were pending in the form of Appeal Suit No. 118/2012. The said proceedings were disposed of in view of the fact that the award itself was set aside in the two writ petitions, which now have been permitted to be withdrawn. Accordingly, liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No. 3, Sri Durga Malleswara Educational Society, to revive Appeal Suit No. 118/2012, if it so desires. It goes without saying that the appeal suit shall be decided on its own merits. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 11. In terms of the aforesaid orders, the writ petitions have been dismissed as withdrawn against the award of the lok adalat but the liberty reserved in favour of "Society? to avail other appropriate remedies, in SLP (Civil) Nos.7825 of 2012; and to revive Appeal Suit No.118 of 2001 if so desired, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2665-2666 of 2016. 12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially in SLP, later on converted in Civil Appeals, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the property in question. 13. E.P.No.44 of 2012 was filed on 09.04.2012 by Boyapati Srinivasa Appa Rao, the defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2001 for execution of lok adalat award in which the delivery warrant is said to have been issued by the Execution Court. 14. In E.P., the Society filed E.A.No.70 of 2012 with the following prayer: “19. 13. E.P.No.44 of 2012 was filed on 09.04.2012 by Boyapati Srinivasa Appa Rao, the defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2001 for execution of lok adalat award in which the delivery warrant is said to have been issued by the Execution Court. 14. In E.P., the Society filed E.A.No.70 of 2012 with the following prayer: “19. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass orders in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent: a) to recall/set aside the delivery warrant issued by the Hon'ble Court in E.P.No.44 of 2012; b) to stay of all further proceedings in the above E.P.No.44/2012 till the disposal of this petition; c) to hold the award sought for execution in these proceedings is null and void, unenforceable and cannot be executed and voidable at the option of the petitioner and as such the execution proceedings may be dismissed with costs; d) for costs of the suit; and e) grant such other relief and reliefs which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 15. The petitioner (D.hr) filed counter in E.A.No.70 of 2012 raising various contentions, inter-alia the locus standi of the society; maintainability of EA and it being barred by law and also reserving the right to file additional counter affidavit, if any. 16. The Execution Court/ I Additional Civil Judge (senior division), Vijayawada passed the order dated 17.07.2025 already reproduced (supra). 17. The learned Execution Court has passed the order that the main execution petition was filed for execution of lok adalat award, whereas EA was filed to hold the award as null and void and unenforceable on the ground of playing fraud against the J.Dr Society. The Execution Court observed that the detailed enquiry had to be conducted to determine the real question in controversy and unless the respective parties adduced their respective evidence the real question in controversy shall not be determined. Hence, the society was directed to adduce evidence, fixing 23.07.2025 as the next date. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/D.hr with regard to the maintainability of EA has not been considered and the direction has been issued to adduce evidence. Hence, the society was directed to adduce evidence, fixing 23.07.2025 as the next date. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/D.hr with regard to the maintainability of EA has not been considered and the direction has been issued to adduce evidence. He submitted that the EA filed objecting the validity, enforceability/ executability of the Lok Adalat award, on the ground of fraud, so, null and void etc., could not be raised before Execution Court and the only remedy of J.Dr.(Society) was to file a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India placing reliance in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh , [ (2008) 2 SCC 660 ] and Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakaput Muthyam Reddy , [ (2018) 13 SCC 480 ] . So in his submission EA was not maintainable and the Execution Court had no jurisdiction to entertain EA and direct to produce evidence, without first deciding the preliminary objections raised before Execution Court. 19. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel submitted that the Execution Court on 10.07.2025 heard on the preliminary objections and written arguments were also submitted, but the Execution Court did not pass any orders on such point, which is failure to exercise the jurisdiction by the Execution Court. He submitted that the impugned order could not be passed mechanically. 20. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 21. Once the petitioner filed objections in E.A.No.70 of 2012 specifically raising the objections with respect to the maintainability of EA on various grounds with the prayer to reject the same as not maintainable and arguments were advanced on 10.07.2025 and written submissions were also filed (vide page Nos.137, 138 to 142 in the memo of CRP), the execution Court must have considered those objections and decided the maintainability of EA, before passing any such order as impugned herein directing the petitioner of EA to adduce evidence. The execution Court is not right in by passing the objection on maintainability of EA raised by the petitioner and directly directing the petitioner of the EA to proceed with the evidence. 21. The order impugned, therefore deserves interference, with further directions to the Execution Court. 22. The execution Court is not right in by passing the objection on maintainability of EA raised by the petitioner and directly directing the petitioner of the EA to proceed with the evidence. 21. The order impugned, therefore deserves interference, with further directions to the Execution Court. 22. However, before doing that, this Court considers it necessary to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jalour Singh (supra) and Bhargavi Constructions (supra) cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 23. In Jalour Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties which is duly signed by the parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat 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/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and that too on very limited grounds. But, where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat 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 Adalat. The question of challenging such an order (i.e., latter kind of order of lok adalat) in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. 24. In Bhargavi Constructions (supra) the principle of law as laid down in Jalour Singh (supra) was reaffirmed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the law laid down in Jalour Singh (supra) was binding on all the courts in the country. 24. In Bhargavi Constructions (supra) the principle of law as laid down in Jalour Singh (supra) was reaffirmed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the law laid down in Jalour Singh (supra) was binding on all the courts in the country. It was further reiterated that in the light of clear pronouncement of the law laid down in Jalour Singh (supra), the only remedy available to the aggrieved person was to file the writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India in the High Court challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat and it was then for the writ Court to decide whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and if so, whether those grounds were sufficient for quashing the Lok Adalat award. 25. Para Nos.22 to 25 in Bhargavi Constructions (supra) read as under: 22. The question arose before this Court (Three Judge Bench) in State of Punjab (supra) as to what is the remedy available to the person aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act. In that case, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court relating to a claim case arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act. One party to the appeal felt aggrieved of the Award and, therefore, questioned its legality and correctness by filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding it to be not maintainable. The aggrieved party, therefore, filed an appeal by way of special leave before this Court. This Court, after examining the scheme of the Act allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. This Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. It was held that the only remedy available with the aggrieved person was to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. The case was accordingly remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition filed by the aggrieved person on its merits in accordance with law. 23. The case was accordingly remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition filed by the aggrieved person on its merits in accordance with law. 23. This is what Their Lordships held in Para 12: { Jalour Singh (supra)} “12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), 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/or 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 Adalat 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 Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 24) In our considered view, the aforesaid law down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing. 25) The High Court was, therefore, not right in by-passing the law laid down by this Court on the ground that the suit can be filed to challenge the award, if the challenge is founded on the allegations of fraud. In our opinion, it was not correct approach of the High Court to deal with the issue in question to which we do not concur.” 26. The law thus is well settled as per Jalour Singh (supra) and Bhargavi Constructions (supra): a) that the lok adalat award passed in terms of the settlement, signed by the parties and annexed to the award can be challenged only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further that, where an award is made by the lok adalat in terms of settlement between the parties duly signed by the parties and annexed to the award, the challenge is on very limited grounds, and b) that, where there is no compromise or settlement, or it is not signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat which does not refer to any settlement, but directs a party 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, would not be an award of the Lok Adalat and there would be no question of challenging such an order in the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 27. In the present case, the position appears to be a bit challenging for the Execution Court while deciding the preliminary objection. The Lok Adalat award prima facie (pages 52 – 54) shows it to be an award in terms of the settlement and signed by the parties. 27. In the present case, the position appears to be a bit challenging for the Execution Court while deciding the preliminary objection. The Lok Adalat award prima facie (pages 52 – 54) shows it to be an award in terms of the settlement and signed by the parties. The law laid down in Jalour Singh (supra) is that if any party wants to challenge such an award it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Here, it is not that the award was not challenged. Tthe respondent herein the Society filed W.P.No.27867 of 2011 challenging the award, which was dismissed. SLP (civil) No.7825 of 2012 there against was also dismissed, however, with liberty to the society to avail "other? appropriate remedies, by permitting to withdraw the writ petition. Once, the Society withdrew W.P.No.27867 of 2011 can it again maintain a writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India? Again, liberty granted is to avail "other appropriate remedies?. Other is important. It cannot be writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India which would be the same and not "other? remedy. Whether EA.No.70 of 2012 is that other appropriate remedy? and if it be so, though at this stage this Court is not expressing any view, to what extent there would be scope for consideration by the Execution Court, in the presence of the Lok Adalat award which in the submission of the learned senior counsel stands as on today? Further, the other two writ petitions filed by the individuals against the same award which were allowed setting aside the award were also got withdrawn by those writ petitioners at the stage of Civil Appeals (respondents 1 & 2 in those Civil Appeals) before the Hon'ble Apex Court and those Civil Appeals were also dismissed as infructuous, but with liberty to respondent No.3 therein i.e., the present respondent-Society, to revive the A.S.No.118 of 2001, if so desired, observing further that, it goes without saying that the appeal suit shall be decided on its own merits. So, whether to revive A.S.No.118 of 2001 is the appropriate remedy?, and whether the Society has approached in A.S.No.118 of 2001 for revival? 28. All these questions inter-alia require consideration by the Execution Court while determining the question of maintainability of EA in the light of the objections raised before it. 29. So, whether to revive A.S.No.118 of 2001 is the appropriate remedy?, and whether the Society has approached in A.S.No.118 of 2001 for revival? 28. All these questions inter-alia require consideration by the Execution Court while determining the question of maintainability of EA in the light of the objections raised before it. 29. Howsoever complex a legal issue seem to be but once raised before a Court, is required to be addressed by such Court and should not be left unaddressed. It has to be considered and decided and should not be bypassed. The execution court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the question of maintainability of EA raised before it. There is certainly failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Execution Court. 30. This Civil Revision Petition is also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in addition to Section 115 CPC, this Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Execution Court to consider and to decide the point of maintainability of EA No.70 of 2012, with due opportunity of hearing to the parties before it, including the Judgment Debtor Society in accordance with law. 31. The impugned order dated 17.07.2025 shall remain in abeyance till such decision is taken by the Execution Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.