Lok adalath case closed can b reopened?

If the matter settled through Lok adalat and decree passed then it cannot be challenged.

Once case is settled and order passed accordingly in Lok Adalat then it can not be challenged. 

Sir

Any judgement regarding that pls help

"now she  taken U turn demanding more money than MOU"  How? Has she approached the Court?

You can search for relevant judgments through your advocate or through internet itelf.

Sir

She approached HC to challenged the decree but v have proofs of MOU, petetions and cheque which she has recd the amount.

It is the settled legal position that award of  a Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts recorded in such award -

In this context, the Supreme Court has held in the case of K. Srinivasappa & Ors. v. M. Mallamma & Ors that -

"33. This Court in Ruby Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra- [(1994) 1 SCC 531] observed that a consent decree is a creature of an agreement and is liable to be set aside on any of the grounds which will invalidate an agreement. Therefore, it would follow that the level of circumspection, which a Court of law ought to exercise while setting aside a consent decree or a decree based on a memo of compromise, would be atleast of the same decree, which is to be observed while declaring an agreement as invalid. 

"34. In Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. – [(2006) 5 SCC 566], this Court held that since no appeal would lie against a compromise decree, the only option available to a party seeking to avoid such a decree would be to challenge the consent decree before the Court that passed the same and to prove that the agreement forming the basis for the decree was invalid. It is therefore imperative that a party seeking to avoid the terms of a consent decree has to establish, before the Court that passed the same, that the agreement on which the consent decree is based, is invalid or illegal.
"35. It is a settled position of law that where an allegation of fraud is made against a party to an agreement, the said allegation would have to be proved strictly, in order to avoid the agreement on the ground that fraud was practiced on a party in order to induce such
party to enter into the agreement. Similarly, the terms of a compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set aside the compromise decree in the instant case." 

Thank u experts

In this case can v file contempt case against her pls guide

No action for contempt lies in the given facts.