IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15074 of 2011 1. Mahendra Singh, Son of Late Ram Dahin Singh 2. Mostt. Maya Devi, Wife of Late Kameshwar Singh. 3. Krishna Kant Singh, Son of Late Kameshwar Singh 4. Ram Niranjan Singh Son of Late Kameshwar Singh All 1 to 4 are resident of village- Devidehra, Post Office, Nagpur, Police Station- Rajpur, Post Office- Nagpur, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar. … Petitioners. Versus 1. Brij Raj Singh, Son of Hawaldar Singh. 2. Hawaldar Singh, Son of Late Moti Singh 3. Janardhan Singh Son of Late Hawaldar Singh. 4. Akhilesh Singh Son of Late Hawaldar Singh. All 1 to 4 are residents of village- Devidehra, Post Office- Nagpur, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar. … Opposite Parties. ----------- 2 12.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 27 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed at the admission stage itself given liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. It appears that the Permanent Lok Adalat passed an award in Pre-litigation Case No. 198 of 2009 on the basis of compromise between the parties. This petitioner was not party to the same Pre-litigation Suit and therefore, subsequently this Misc. Case No. 03 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the parties obtained an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat by playing fraud without making the petitioner as party in the Suit. The petitioner is necessary party and has got a share in the property which has been 2 compromised by the respondents only. In C.W.J.C. No. 14426 of 2009 disposed of on 06.11.2009 Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “As discussed and held earlier, powers of Lok Adalat are not co-extensive with that of civil courts who have full power to take evidence including oral evidence and also to exercise necessary powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such situation, in our view, nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or other law can render the petitioners remediless and following the law noticed above in the case of Smt. Anita (supra), we hold that the petitioners will be entitled to invoke plenary jurisdiction of civil court to claim necessary relief on the ground of fraud or even on the grounds available to petitioner no.1. As a proposition of law it is well established that a person who was not a party to the proceeding, will not be bound by any order passed therein unless he or she was impleaded through a representative like Karta or an authorized agent who may in appropriate situations represent others. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of ”. 3 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is not maintainable and the petitioner if so advised may approach appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceeding. Md. Ibrarul ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)