THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4344 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is by the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 212 of 2008. The petitioners along with the respondents approached the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam under Section 19 of the A.P. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which by the order dt. 18.12.2008 in L.S.A.No. 1104 of 2008 recorded the settlement between the parties to the effect that clause (iv) of the terms and conditions of the settlement between the parties’ records that the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2 herein) agreed to pay Rs. 40.00 lakhs towards the principal out of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2.40 crores and interest of Rs. 25,20,000/- from 1.9.2007 to 31.10.2008 in advance, in relaxation of the condition stipulated in the agreement of sale dt. 18.4.2007 made in this behalf, as one time measure; that the balance principal amount of Rs. 2.00 crores will be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 to 3 (revision petitioners herein) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.11.2008 till the final payment at the time of execution of sale deed/GPA by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. No time stipulation was recorded with regard to the obligation of the plaintiffs to pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 2.00 crores. The suit was filed by the respondents herein against the defendants seeking relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dt. 18.4.2007 executed by the revision petitioners in favour of the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs were not paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 2.00 crores and in the absence of any time stipulation for such payment in the settlement recorded by the District Legal Services Authority, the revision petitioners filed PLC.No. 567 of 2011 before the Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam seeking inclusion in the Award dt. 18.12.2008 of a time limit for payment of the balance sale consideration together with interest by the plaintiffs. This application was resisted by the plaintiffs on several grounds including that the Legal Services Authority had no jurisdiction to review its order and asserted that they are not agreeable to variation of the terms and conditions of the settlement between the parties. In the above circumstances, the District Legal Services Authority by the order impugned rejected the plea of the revision petitioners by observing that once the Award was passed by the Legal Services Authority, it had become functus officio and the Lok Adalath has no authority to add or delete anything from the Award which was passed previously, by incorporating a time limit in the Award as such would amount to review of the previous award. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners Sri.P.Venugopal that clause (iv) of the terms and conditions is ineffective as both the plaintiffs are mulcted with the liability of payment and interest and the revision petitioners cannot derive the benefit of an obligation of the plaintiffs to pay balance sale consideration. Concurring with the view taken by the District Legal Services Authority, this Court holds that since the Lok Adalath can pass an award based on the terms and conditions and consent between the parties and unless the parties agree to incorporate the time limit in the award, the Lok Adalath cannot decide the merits of the petition on factual basis. This Court discerns no error in the order impugned, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 21.10.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4344 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 21.10.2011.