ORDER
Ghulam Mohammed, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31-1-2005 in LA. No. 67 of 2004 in A.S. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, extending the time fixed by the Lok Adalat.
2. The undisputed facts are that the parties herein have settled A.S. No. 17 of 2000 before the Lok Adalat on 7-8-2004 for Rs. 99,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of the decree. The respondents herein have paid the amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the revision petitioner on the same day and Rs. 10,000/- on 23:9-2004, and Rs. 9,000/- remained unpaid before the due date. The revision petitioner refused to accept the balance amount as it was not paid within the stipulated time. Hence, the respondents herein approached the Court of Senior Civil Judge by way of LA. No. 67 of 2004 in A.S. No. 17 of 2000 and sought extension of time granted by the Lok Adalat. The learned Judge granted extension of time till 5-2-2005 to pay the amount of Rs. 9,000/-.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower court has no jurisdiction to entertain the LA. as the award is passed by the Lok Adalat and the appeal stood dismissed as per the terms of settlement. Further, the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be interfered with in any manner as it is final and binding on the parties.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits, that the lower court has inherent powers under Section 151 of C.P.C. to extend the time for payment to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court. Further, the learned Counsel relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in P. T. Thomas v. Thomas, 2005 (1) Decisions To-day (SC) 631, submits that the Court can interfere with the awards passed by the Lok Adalat to meet the ends of justice.
6. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has not disputed the fact of payments of the amounts by the respondents to the revision petitioner. The main ground urged is that the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be interfered with by any Court as the award is final and binding on the parties. Similar question as to whether or not the time granted by Lok Adalat can be extended was considered recently by the Supreme Court in P. T. Thomas v. Thomas wherein it was observed:
“In our opinion, the award of the Lok Adalat is fictionally deemed to be decrees of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This, in our opinion includes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same. In this connection, the High Court has failed to note that by the award what is put an end to is the appeal in the District Court and thereby the litigations between brothers forever. The view taken by the High Court, in our view, will totally defeat the object and purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decision of the Lok Adalat meaningless.”
7. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that the attempt of the court should be to give life and enforceability to the compromise award and not to defeat it on technical grounds, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is untenable. In the instant case, the substantial amount has already been paid and the meager amount of Rs. 9,000/- could not be paid within the stipulated time. If such minor lapse can be remedied, it has to be resorted to by the court and give effect to the decree. Otherwise, the entire litigation gets revived and the settlement reached by the parties in Lok Adalat would never bear any result. Further, the award passed in Lok Adalat must never be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities and the courts have to make an endeavour, having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of parties, to give effect to the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat without detrimental to the interest of parties. In the case on hand, the respondents are willing to pay the balance amount though with minor delay and it will not prejudice the other party in any manner. In fact, such willingness will give complete effect to the award thereby putting an end to the litigation. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is mala fide intention on the part of respondents in not paying the remaining amount within the stipulated time. Accepting the balance amount after minor delay will not affect the interests of the other party, who has been party to the settlement before Lok Adalat. Thus, the Court can interfere with the award of the Lok Adalat and pass appropriate orders in such a manner as to give effect to the settlement reached between the parties to the dispute in Lok Adalat, but not to sit in appeal against the merits of the compromise award passed by the Lok Adult.
8. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.