IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 3511 of 2010 1. FULWASIYA DEVI D/O LATE DOMAN YADAV, W/O SUSHIL YADAV R/O VILL- NACHIYAR BIGHA, P.S MADANPUR, DISTT- AURANGABAD AT PRESENT R/O VILL- BELA TOLE, HASANPUR, PO SALAIYA DISTT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 2. MANJU DEVI D/O LATE DOMAN YADAV W/O AWADHESH YADAV R/O VILL SIMRAHYA, P.S GOH, POST- KATHAUTIYA, DISTT- AURANGABAD AT PRESENT R/O VILL- BELA TOLE, HASANPUR, PO SALAIYA, DISTT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 3. MINA DEVI D/O LATE DOMA YADAV, W/O INDERJEET YADAV R/O VILL- MAHADEO ASTHAN, POST- FULWARIYA NULARIYA, P.S AAMAS, DISTT- AT PRESENT R/O VILL- BELA TOLE, HASANPUR, PO SALAIYA, DISTT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRARE CUM COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD 3. TILAK YADAV S/O JUDAGIR YADAV R/O VILL- DASRATHKHAP. PO MADANPUR, DISTT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 4. MULHIYA DEVI W/O CHANDERDEO YADAV R/O VILL HARIPUR, P.S- MADANPUR, DISTT- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) ----------- 2 20.04.2010 Petitioners are permitted to add Article-227 of the Constitution of India under which this application is filed and pay necessary Court fee in that regard. This order would operate only upon payment of such additional Court fee. Petitioners claim to be the daughters of late Doman Yadav of Madanpur, district – Aurangabad. They have challenged the judgment/partition decree passed on alleged compromise on 29.01.2000 by permanent Lok Adalat, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No 62 of 1998. It appears the said Partition Suit was allegedly taken by the parties to Lok Adalat where, on basis of an alleged compromise dated 12.10.1999, the Lok Adalat passed the decree. There were only two parties to the suit being one Tilak Yadav and the father of petitioners Doman Yadav. Petitioners were not aware of this. When they came to know of this decree by the Lok Adalat, they immediately filed a suit before Court of 2 Sub Judge – I being Partition Suit No 157 of 2000 which has now been dismissed by order dated 08.01.2010 holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with judgment and decree of Lok Adalat. The plea taken to challenge the judgment and decree as passed by the Lok Adalat, Aurangabad was that Doman Yadav had already died on 02.10.1999 as per death certificate granted by appropriate authority in this regard dated 01.04.2000. That being so, the compromise petition dated 12.10.1999 was an outright forgery and the judgment and decree obtained from the Lok Adalat was due to fraud practiced and this judgment and decree were nullity in law. The learned Sub Judge rejected the plea on ground of statutory bar as contained in Legal Services Authority Act. Being aggrieved by the said order and the judgment and decree, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed. In my view, this Court, in this summary jurisdiction, is ill- equipped to decide this issue as the allegations are that fraud was committed upon the Lok Adalat, Aurangabad. I direct the petitioners to file appropriate application before the said Lok Adalat for recall of the order as has been impugned before this Court because it is well settled that if an order has been obtained fraudulently then the order is a nullity and every Court and/or authority has an inherent jurisdiction and duty to recall such an order. If such an application is filed before the Lok Adalat, Aurangabad, it would consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties at the earliest before more damage can be done by the order if it is found to be fraudulently obtained. It would be competent for the petitioners to make all prayers before the 3 Lok Adalat including prayer for interim relief which would be dealt with by the Lok Adalat in accordance with law. It would endeavour to pass final order in the matter at an early date not later than six months from the date application is filed. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)