VERDICTUM.

IN
2024:BHC-AS:33375

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

rrpillai CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3743 OF 2021

Madhukar Baburao Shete

Age : 75 years, Occ : Agri
R/o – 1551/4/28, Shikshan Maharshi
U. J. Mali Guruji CHS, Near Rotary Club
Subhash Nagar, At post Barshi ….. Petitioner
(Orig. Defendant)
Tal Barshi, Dist. Solapur

Versus

RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
1. Yogesh Trimbak Shete
PILLAI

Age : 42 years, Occ : Agri

Digitally
signed by R/o – Post Uplai Thonge
RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
PILLAI
….. Respondent
Date:
2024.08.20
20:28:09
Tal: Barshi, Dist-Solapur (Orig. Plaintiff)
+0530

2. Maharashtra State Legal Services

Authority through Hon’ble Member
Secretary, R/at – 105, PWD Building
High Court, Bombay-01

Mr. Sujeet R. Bugade for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jay Patil i/b. Ms. Barsha Parulekar for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vishal Kanade for Respondent No. 2 – MSLSA.
CORAM: GAURI GODSE J
RESERVED ON: 10th MAY 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 20th AUGUST 2024

1/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Patil waives service

for respondent no. 1 (“respondent”), and Mr. Kanade waives service

for respondent no. 2. In view of the order dated 8 th May 2024, the

petition is taken up for final disposal.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. This petition is filed by the original defendant to challenge the

Award passed by the Lok Adalat disposing of the suit in terms of the

settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat. The

petitioner challenges the Award on the ground that he never intended

to settle the dispute and was unaware that his signature was obtained

on the settlement terms.

3. Considering the controversy involved in the petition, by order

dated 9th January 2024, the petitioner was permitted to amend the

petition to add Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (“MSLSA”)

as a party respondent in the petition.

4. The respondent filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 in the

Civil Court at Barshi. The suit was filed on 1 st September 2017 and

2/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

was registered as a Regular Civil Suit on 4 th September 2017. It is the

petitioner’s case that he had never received any suit summons, and

there was no reference made as contemplated under Section 20 of the

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“said Act”). The learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that, as instructed by the original plaintiff,

the petitioner appeared before the Lok Adalat on 9 th September 2017,

and the settlement award was passed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

a senior citizen with 95% physical disability. The petitioner’s father

had three sons and three daughters. There was partition during the

lifetime of his father, and the same was recorded in the revenue

records by way of Mutation Entry No. 566. Accordingly, separate

entries in the name of the co-sharers were made in the revenue

records, and the petitioner and his brother started cultivating their own

land separately. In the year 2010, the petitioner’s brother Trimbak

expired, and the names of his widow, son and two daughters were

entered in the revenue records. Trimbak’s son is the plaintiff in the

present matter. It is the petitioner’s case that Trimbak’s son, i.e.

3/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

respondent herein, filed a false claim against the petitioner by way of

aforesaid RCS No. 781 of 2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent

brought the petitioner before the Lok Adalat panel, and under the

respondent’s undue influence, the petitioner signed the compromise

pursis based on which the suit stood disposed of before the Lok

Adalat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

was unaware that his signature was taken on the compromise terms to

be filed before the Lok Adalat.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without

making a valid reference as required under Section 20 of the said Act,

the panel of Lok Adalat would not get any jurisdiction to dispose of the

suit. In the present case, the suit summons was not served upon the

petitioner, and without following the mandatory procedure under

Section 20 of the said Act, the suit was listed before the Lok Adalat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the very object

of the said Act is frustrated in view of the procedure followed in the

present case. Hence, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is in

violation of the principles of natural justice and against the object of the

4/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

said Act.

8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Namdeo

Hambira Babar and Others vs. Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Others 1.

He submitted that this Court, in the said decision, held that the

procedure as prescribed under Section 20 of the said Act regarding

making a reference to the Lok Adalat is mandatory. He submitted that

in view of the legal principles settled by this Court, it is obligatory on

the part of the Lok Adalat to return the case before the regular Court in

the event there is doubt about the legality of the settlement. He thus

submits that the reference to the Lok Adalat is therefore required to be

made in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the said Act

to enable the Lok Adalat to take cognizance of the case listed before

the Lok Adalat. Thus, the very purpose of making a reference to the

Lok Adalat is frustrated in the present case, and the suit was illegally

disposed of before the Lok Adalat without verifying the legality of the

terms of the settlement.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the award

1
2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 932

5/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

passed by the Lok Adalat is contrary to the provisions of the said Act

and thus requires to be quashed and set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

10. Learned counsel for the respondent / original plaintiff supported

the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. He submitted that the plaint in

RCS No. 781 of 2017 was presented on 1 st September 2017, and the

same was registered on 4th September 2017. The order recorded at

Exhibit -1 on 4th September 2017 shows that the suit was transferred

to the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division (“Joint CJJD”) Barshi. On

the same day, the summons was issued and was made returnable on

9th September 2017, which happens to be the scheduled date of the

Lok Adalat. The endorsement on Exhibit-1 recording issuing summons

to the defendant (petitioner) shows the words “LA”, which indicates

that the summons was made returnable before the Lok Adalat on 9 th

September 2017, which was a Court non-working Saturday; hence, it

is clear that summons was issued for the purpose of making a

reference before the Lok Adalat and that the summons was not made

returnable before the regular Court. Hence, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that though there is no explicit order recorded

6/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

for making a reference to the Lok Adalat, the order dated 4 th

September 2017 of issuing summons being made returnable on the

scheduled date of the Lok Adalat is impliedly an order of reference to

the Lok Adalat as contemplated under Section 20 (1).

11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that

Section 19(5)(ii) confers powers on the Lok Adalat to take up any

matter which falls within the jurisdiction of any Court for which the Lok

Adalat is organized. He submitted that it is a matter of record that the

said suit between the parties was pending before the Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Barshi, and in terms of the returnable date of 9 th

September 2017, the suit was listed before the Lok Adalat. He further

submitted that the respondent and the petitioner both voluntarily

appeared before the Lok Adalat and signed the compromise pursis,

which the respective Advocates also endorsed. The very fact that the

petitioner appeared before the Lok Adalat indicates that he intended to

arrive at an amicable settlement and hence signed the terms in the

compromise pursis. He thus submitted that the compromise pursis is

a genuine settlement of the dispute between the parties. He submitted

that the Award passed before the Lok Adalat creates a substantive

7/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

right in favour of the respondent. Hence, even if any irregularity in

making a reference is found, the Award cannot be set aside on that

basis. The petitioner signed and executed the compromise pursis and

also executed the notarised affidavit on 31 st August 2017, i.e. one day

prior to the filing of the suit. Hence, based on the Award, the name of

the respondent was also recorded in the revenue records with respect

to the suit property by way of Mutation Entry No. 6725, made in

February 2018. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

the petitioner never objected to the said revenue entry; however, after

a lapse of more than three years, he filed the present petition

challenging the award passed by Lok Adalat.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner

had taken a contrary stand by stating that he was compelled to sign

the notarised agreement dated 31 st August 2017 and further by stating

that on 9th September 2017, he attended the Lok Adalat and was made

to sign by the respondent on the draft of the compromise pursis by

pressurizing him. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

the ground of challenge raised by the petitioner amounts to making

allegations of fraud and coercion. He submitted that in view of the

8/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

conduct of the petitioner in signing the notarised agreement on 31 st

August 2017 and raising a grievance after almost three years shows

the malafide intention of the petitioner in making false allegations

against the respondent. He submitted that the petitioner is an

educated person and has retired as Registrar of a College. Hence, the

petitioner’s case is unbelievable that he signed the compromise pursis

under the influence of the respondent without knowing the contents of

the same. He submits that the disability certificate relied upon by the

petitioner is a physical disability, which only affects the mobility of the

petitioner. However, the petitioner is mentally sound and an educated

person to well understand the case listed before Lok Adalat and the

execution of the compromise pursis.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the law laid

down by this Court in the case of Namdeo Hambira Babar is of no

assistance to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The

facts of the said case and the facts of the present matter are

completely different. Hence, the legal principles laid down in the said

decision are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case

of Namdeo Hambira Babar, the order passed by the Lok Adalat was

9/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

inconsistent and contrary to the order passed by the Trial court.

Hence, it was held that without verifying the papers from the revenue

proceedings and without verifying the legality of the terms of

settlement the case could not have been settled by the Lok Adalat. He

submitted that the legal principles laid down in the said decision are

not of any assistance to the arguments raised on behalf of the

petitioner.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa and Others

Vs M. Mallamma and Others2. He submitted that the petitioner’s

arguments amount to making allegations of coercion, undue influence

and fraud. Hence, on the said grounds, if the petitioner seeks to set

aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the petitioner is under an

obligation to prove the allegations by leading evidence. Hence, in the

absence of any proof to support the allegations, the award passed by

the Lok Adalat cannot be interfered with in the present petition filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the affidavit in

2
AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2381

10/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

reply filed on behalf of the respondent opposing the allegations made

by the petitioner. He, in particular, relied upon paragraph 6 of the

affidavit in reply to contend that substantive rights have been created

in favour of the respondent in terms of the award passed by the Lok

Adalat. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

petition also suffers from delay and latches. He thus submitted that

this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. He thus prayed for the dismissal of the present

petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MSLSA:

16. Learned counsel appearing for the MSLSA pointed out the

relevant provisions of the said Act. He submitted that the Lok Adalat

can take cognizance of cases in different contingencies. He submitted

that all the contingencies indicated under Section 20 would

mandatorily require a reference to be made by the Court. Learned

counsel submitted that sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides for the

jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to determine and to arrive at a

compromise or settlement between the parties to the dispute in

respect of either a case pending or any matter which is falling within

11/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

the jurisdiction of the Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized.

However, Section 20 of the said Act empowers Lok Adalat to take

cognizance of the cases referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 19.

Sub-Section (1) (i) (a) and (b) of Section 20 empowers Lok Adalat to

take cognizance of the cases where either the parties thereof agree, or

one of the parties makes an application to the Court. The said sub-

section provides for making a reference to the Lok Adalat for

settlement if the Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of

such settlement, and on the Court being so satisfied, the Court shall

make a reference of the case to the Lok Adalat. Proviso to sub-section

(1) of Section 20 states that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat

unless the Court gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

17. Learned counsel for MSLSA submitted that for referring a

pending matter before the Lok Adalat, an order of the Court is

mandatory, provided the Court is satisfied that it is an appropriate case

to be referred to the Lok Adalat. He, thus, submitted that when a

pending case before the Court is to be referred to the Lok Adalat, the

prima facie satisfaction of the Court is necessary for passing the order

of reference to the Lok Adalat. Hence, in the absence of one of the

12/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

parties, no reference can be made to Lok Adalat for a pending case.

He further submitted that any case within the jurisdiction of the Court

for which the Lok Adalat is organised can be brought before the Lok

Adalat, provided both parties agree to it. Thus, the learned counsel for

MSLSA submitted that when a pending case is to be listed before the

Lok Adalat, an order of reference is mandatory subject to a prima facie

observation recorded by the Court making a reference to the Lok

Adalat.

CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE:

18. Considering the manner in which the case was listed before the

Lok Adalat before panel no. 4 headed by 2 nd Joint CJJD and Judicial

Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC’) and considering the manner in which

the suit was disposed of by the 2 nd Joint CJJD and JMFC, a report was

called for from the concerned Court of the 2 nd Joint CJJD and JMFC,

Barshi, for submitting necessary details and all the particulars

regarding the order of reference as required under Section 20 of the

said Act as well as the particulars of the procedure followed before the

Lok Adalat organized on 9th September 2017. Accordingly, a report

dated 3rd April 2024 prepared by the present 2nd Joint CJJD, Barshi,

13/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

was placed before this Court. The said report contained a copy of the

Administrative Order dated 6th September 2017 passed for the

formation of panels of Lok Adalat to be held on 9 th September 2017.

19. A perusal of the said Administrative Order and the report shows

that panel no. 4, headed by (Mrs. J. R. Raut) JMFC, was assigned to

take up civil and criminal cases pending before her and the last 20

matters from the board (causelist) of 3rd Joint CJJD, Barshi. Hence, by

order dated 22nd April 2024, a report from the 3 rd Joint CJJD, Barshi

was called. By the said order, a report containing information on

whether any suit summons was issued, whether the suit was listed on

the board of the 3 rd Joint CJJD, Barshi and whether it was referred to

the Lok Adalat as per Administrative Order dated 6 th September 2017

was called for. Accordingly, a report dated 30 th April 2024, prepared by

the present 2nd Joint CJJD and JMFC, Barshi, was placed before this

Court. Another report dated 3 rd May 2024, prepared by the present In-

charge 3rd Joint CJJD and JMFC, Barshi, was also placed before this

Court.

20. A perusal of the first report dated 3 rd April 2024 and perusal of

the papers of the petition indicates that the suit was registered on 4 th

14/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

September 2017. On a perusal of Exhibit-1 of the plaint annexed to

the petition, it appears that on 4th September 2017, the suit was

assigned to the 3rd Joint CJJD, Barshi. The order dated 4 th September

2017, recorded below Exhibit-1, contains an endorsement that the suit

summons is issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim

and file a written statement to settle the issues. The endorsement

indicates the returnable date as 9 th September 2017 with a further

endorsement of the letters “LA”. The two orders recorded below

Exhibit-1 read thus:

“ORDER

The suit is madeover to the Court of Ld. 3 rdJt.

Civil Judge, J.D. Barshi for hearing and disposal
according to law.

Sd/

Date : 04/9/2017 Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Barshi

ORDER

Issue suit summons to the defendant/s to appear

& answer the claim and file written statement in
their defence if any within (30) days from the
date of Service of Summons and to settle the
issues R/on 9/9/2017. LA
Date: /2017 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D.Barshi”
15/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

21. The aforesaid noting, which refers to the letters “LA”, possibly

indicates the words “Lok Adalat”. The first order, which bears a date of

4th September 2017, is seen to have been signed by the Joint CJJD,

Barshi; however, the second order endorsed below the order of 4 th

September 2017 neither bears any date nor there is any signature of

the Judge. A copy of the roznama placed on record by the learned

counsel for the petitioner does not record any order issuing suit

summons.

22. The report dated 3rd May 2024 referred to the Administrative

Order dated 6th September 2017, which directs that the last 20 matters

pending on the board of the 3 rd Joint CJJD were to be listed before the

panel of Sou. J. R. Raut, JMFC, Barshi. The said report encloses a

copy of the board dated 9 th September 2017 of the 3 rd Joint Civil

Judge Junior Division, Barshi and a copy of the Administrative Order

dated 6th September 2017.

23. A perusal of the Administrative Order dated 6 th September 2017

is signed by the Chairperson of the Taluka Legal Services Committee,

Barshi, i.e. District Judge – 1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Barshi.

The Administrative Order contains the formation of five panels. The

16/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

first panel was formed for the civil and criminal cases and motor

accident claim applications pending before the District Judge-1 and

Additional Sessions Judge, Barshi and District Judge -2, including pre-

litigation cases as specified in the order. Panel No. 2 appears to have

been formed to deal with the cases pending before the CJJD, Barshi,

including pre-litigation cases as specified in the order. The third panel

appears to have been formed to deal with the cases pending before

the Joint CJSD. The fourth panel was to be headed by Mrs. J. R.

Raut, JMFC Barshi, for dealing with criminal and civil cases pending

before her and the last 20 civil cases from the board of 3 rd Joint CJJD,

Barshi. The said administrative order thus did not include the list of

matters to be listed before the Lok Adalat panels.

24. However, the report dated 3rd April 2024 indicated that as per the

said Administrative Order, the last 20 Civil matters pending on the

board of the 3rd Joint CJJD, Barshi, were directed to be kept before

panel no. 4 for disposal in the Lok Adalat. The said report further

records that in view of the Administrative Order, the present suit was

listed before panel no. 4 of the Lok Adalat headed by 2 nd Joint CJJD,

Barshi. The report further states that from the Award at Exhibit 9, it

17/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

appears that both the parties and their respective Advocates were

present and signed the Award. The report further states that from

Exhibit-8 and the order passed therein, it appears that both the parties

and their Advocates were present, and they admitted the contents of

the compromise pursis, which were read over and explained to them

and the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalat. The report further states

that, accordingly, the suit was disposed of as compromised in the Lok

Adalat, and the order to that effect was passed at Exhibit-1 on the

same day. The said report further also records that the parties had

filed their address memo and vakalatnama on record and both parties

were present with their respective Advocates before the Lok Adalat.

The report further states that the compromise pursis is at Exhibit 8,

and both parties and their Advocates, as well as the panel head and

members of the Lok Adalat, signed the Award. The additional report

dated 30th April 2024 states that a list of 82 matters was scheduled on

the board dated 9th September 2017 of 3rd Joint CJJD, Barshi, and the

last 20 matters commenced from serial no. 63 and that the present suit

was listed at serial no. 69, i.e. amongst the last 20 matters.

25. Another report dated 3rd May 2024 prepared by the In-charge 3 rd

18/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

Joint CJJD and JMFC states that as per the Administrative order dated

6th September 2017, the last 20 matters pending on the board of 3 rd

Joint CJJD, Barshi were kept before the panel of Sou J. R. Raut,

JMFC, Barshi. The report further enclosed a copy of the Administrative

Order and a copy of the board (causelist). The copy of the causelist

dated 9th September 2017 shows that the present suit was listed at

serial no.69. The cause list from serial nos. 6 to 53 is listed under the

heading “summons returnable”. Matters from serial nos. 54 to 78 are

listed under the heading “Lok Nyayalay”. Thus, from the causelist it

appears that only serial nos. 54 to 78 were shown under the heading

of “Lok Nyayalay”. The present suit was listed under the said heading

at serial no. 69.

26. It is a matter of record that 9 th September 2017 was a second

Saturday. Thus, it was a non-working Saturday for the Court. Hence, it

is not clear why the causelist of regular matters was prepared and

shown as due on that day. A perusal of the printout of the roznama of

the said suit shows that the entry of filing was on 1 st September 2017,

and the date of registration was on 4 th September 2017. The list of

orders of the said case shows only an order dated 9 th September

19/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

2017. Roznama does not record any order of issuing suit summons.

The last page of the plaint annexed as Exhibit C to the petition shows

entries made below Exhibit-1. The first endorsement shows the

accompaniments to Exhibit-1 to the proceedings instituted and

presented on 1st September 2017 and registered on 4 th September

2017. Annexures show vakalatnama, address memo and duplicate

copy of the plaint along with affidavit of the plaintiff. The said

annexures are seen to have been examined by the Assistant

Superintendent and ordered to be registered as a Regular Civil Suit.

27. The first order recorded below Exhibit-1 shows that the suit is

made over to the Court of 3 rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division for

hearing and disposal. The said order is dated 4 th September 2017.

The order recorded below the said order is an undated and unsigned

order showing the issuance of suit summons to the defendant, making

it returnable on 9th September 2017 with the endorsement of letters

“LA”. Thereafter, there is an endorsement showing an order below

Exhibit-1, which reads thus :

“ORDER BELOW EXH.1

Read order passed below exh.8. The suit is disposed of as

20/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

compromised in Lok-Adalat. The court fees be refunded as per rules.

(Sou. J. R. Raut)
nd
2 Jt. CJJD and JMFC Barshi and
Head of Panel No.4.
Date/-9.9.2017”

The said order is dated 9 th September 2017 which shows that the suit

is disposed of as compromised in Lok Adalat as per order below

Exh.8. Copy of Exh.8 is annexed as Exhibit-1 to the present petition.

Exh.8 is a compromise pursis which is seen to have been signed by

the plaintiff and defendant and their respective Advocates. There is an

endorsement on the said compromise pursis which reads thus:

“ORDER BELOW EXH.8

Both the parties are present along with their counsels. The suit is for

declaration and injunction. They settled their dispute in Lok-Adalat. The

compromise is read over and explained to both the parties. They admitted it,

hence it is read and recorded.

( Sou. J. R. Raut)
2nd Jt. CJJD and JMFC Barshi and
Head of Panel No.4.
Date/-9.9.2017”

21/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

28. The endorsement is seen as an order below Exh.8, recording

that both parties are present and have settled their dispute in Lok

Adalat. It further records that the compromise is read over and

explained to both parties; they admitted it, and hence, it is read and

recorded. The said order below Exh.8 is seen to have been signed by

Sou. J. R. Raut, 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, Barshi

and head of panel no. 4.

29. A perusal of Exh. 9 shows that the same is an award before the

Lok Adalat. The said Exh. 9 appears to be in the prescribed form of

the Award of the Lok Adalat. Exh. 9 shows the name of the Court that

referred the case as Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshi. It further

records the names of the parties and the presence of the panel, i.e.,

the judicial officer and two members. The heading “Award” records as

follows;

“The dispute between the parties having been referred for

determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised

matter. The following award is passed in terms of the settlement.”

22/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

The endorsement below the aforesaid heading shows as follows:

“As per Exh.8”.

The entire remaining page is blank thereafter. At the end, there is an

endorsement of the signatures of the parties, their respective

Advocates, and the members of the panel, with the date of 9 th

September 2017 and the place as Barshi.

30. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid endorsement indicates that

though the compromise pursis is seen to have been signed by the

parties, the same does not appear to have been verified by the Lok

Adalat panel. The contents of the award reflected in the prescribed

format only make an entry “as per Exh.8”. Exh.8 is a compromise

pursis, which records that it is read over and explained to both parties

by Sou. J. R. Raut, 2 nd Jt. CJJD and JMFC Barshi and Head of Panel

No. 4. Thus, it appears that the procedure required to be followed for

verifying the legality of the compromise between the parties is not

verified by the concerned panel of the Lok Adalat.

31. So far as the order of reference as mandatorily required under

Section 20 is concerned, the entire record of the petition and the three

23/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

reports filed by the concerned Judges does not contain any such

order. The endorsement made at Exhibit-1 only shows the order of

issuing suit summons, which the concerned Judge does not even sign.

However, the notice issuing suit summons contains an endorsement of

the letters “LA” after the returnable date, which may indicate “Lok

Adalat”. However, the same cannot be termed an order of reference

as sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the respondent.

32. It is pertinent to note that the order issuing suit summons, as

recorded below Exhibit-1, does not contain the signature of the

concerned Judge. Neither of the three reports contain any particulars

with regard to the order issuing suit summons or specific order for

making a reference as required under Section 20. The only reliance

placed in the reports seeks support on an Administrative Order passed

by the Chairperson of the Taluka Legal Services Committee, Barshi. A

perusal of the said Administrative Order issued by the Chairperson of

the Committee contains the constitution of five panels and directions

regarding the listing of cases before the respective panels. Even the

Administrative Order does not refer to any Order passed by the

concerned Judge under Section 20 of the said Act.

24/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

33. The present case appears to have been listed before panel no.

4, headed by Smt. J. R. Raut, 2nd Joint CJJD and JMFC, Barshi, on 9th

September 2017, pursuant to the Administrative Order dated 6 th

September 2017 passed by the Chairperson of the Taluka Legal

Services Committee, Barshi. The suit appears to have been pending

before the 3rd Joint CJJD, Barshi. There is neither any order passed by

the Court as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 20 nor

there is any reference made by the Committee as contemplated under

sub-section (2) of Section 20. A perusal of the copy of the Award

indicates that the suit is not disposed of as contemplated under sub-

sections (3) and (4) of Section 20. A perusal of the Award clearly

indicates that the concerned panel of the Lok Adalat has passed an

Award in terms of the settlement as per Exhibit 8. A perusal of Exhibit

8 indicates that only the head of the panel, i.e. the 2 nd Joint CJJD and

JMFC Barshi, has passed an order recording that the parties settled

the dispute in Lok Adalat. The concerned Judge further recorded that

the compromise between the parties is read over and explained by her

to both parties and that they admit it; hence, it is read and recorded.

25/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

Thus, it is clear that the compromise was not arrived at before the Lok

Adalat panel. It appears that the parties independently signed the

compromise pursis, and only the concerned Judge heading the panel

read and recorded the settlement. Such procedure is not contemplated

under the said Act.

34. The order passed by the learned Judge below Exhibit 8 amounts

to transferring the suit to the Court. Once the suit is referred to the Lok

Adalat, it has to be either settled before the Lok Adalat as

contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 20, and if not settled

before the Lok Adalat, and the Lok Adalat makes no award, then it has

to be returned to the Court from which the reference has been

received under sub-section (1) of Section 20 for disposal in

accordance with law. The aforementioned facts indicate that the award

is not made by the Lok Adalat as contemplated under sub-sections (3)

and (4) of Section 20. Thus, if the Award was not made by the Lok

Adalat, then the suit should have been returned to the 3 rd Joint CJJD,

Barshi, to whom it was originally assigned and from which Court the

reference before the Lok Adalat was expected to be made. Thus, in

any event, the 2nd Joint CJJD and JMFC, who was heading the Lok

26/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

Adalat panel, had no jurisdiction to dispose of the suit.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE SAID ACT:

35. The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Namdeo Babar held that without recording satisfaction that the

case was an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok

Adalat, a reference to Lok Adalat could not have been made under

sub-section (1) of Section 20. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed

that only for adding to the numbers of the cases disposed of by Maha

Lok Adalat, such a reference cannot be made. The Hon’ble Division

Bench further held that under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of CPC, a Court

cannot pass a decree in terms of compromise unless the compromise

is lawful; therefore, even the Lok Adalat cannot pass an Award in

terms of compromise unless the compromise is lawful. Thus, it is

necessary for the Lok Adalat to consider the issue of the legality of the

compromise, and if the Lok Adalat has a doubt about the legality of the

settlement made before it, instead of passing an Award, the case must

be returned to the regular Court. It is the duty of the Lok Adalat to

inquire whether the parties have understood the contents of the

compromise or settlement and whether they have willingly signed.

27/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

Thus, the compromise or settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat

must satisfy the same test as laid down under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of

CPC.

36. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision

of this Court in the case of Sau. Pushpa Bhutada, to support his

submissions, that the Court before which the case is pending has the

power to refer the case before Lok Adalat. There cannot be any debate

on the proposition that the Court is empowered under Section 20 of

the said Act to refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Even under clause (b)

of sub-section (2) of Section 89 of CPC, the Court can refer the

dispute to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-

section (1) of Section 20 of the said Act. Thus, what is important is that

the reference has to be made as contemplated under sub-section (1)

of Section 20 of the said Act. This Court, in the decision of Sau.

Pushpa Bhutada, held in paragraph 4 as follows;

“4. On plain language of Section 20 it is seen that, the Court

before whom the case is instituted and finding shall refer the
case to the Lok Adalat for settlement, if the parties thereto
agree to opt for redressal of the dispute before that forum.
But when only one of the party to the dispute makes an

28/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

application to the Court for reference of the case to the Lok

Adalat for settlement, even in such a situation the Court
shall refer the dispute to the Lok Adalat for settlement, but
in this case the additional requirement is that the Court
should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of
such settlement. Whereas, the third situation perceived by
clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 enables the Cour
to refer the case to the Lok Adalat on its own if it is satisfied
that the matter is an appropriate one to he taken
cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In the third category,
whether the parties to the dispute, either singularly or jointly,
agree for reference does not arise, but the quintessence for
invoking this provision is that the Court must be satisfied
that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken
cognizance of by the Lok Adalat and nothing more.
However, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1), before
making reference, the Court shall give reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties. A fortiori, it will be
preposterous to hold as contended that the Court has no
authority to refer a case on its own even though it is
satisfied that the case is an appropriate one for reference to
the Lok Adalat for settlement. To my mind, it is wholly
unnecessary for the Court to investigate whether there are
chances of settlement. The purpose of such reference is to
explore the possibility of conciliation with the mediation of
an independent agency which has the expertise in that

29/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

behalf and statutory backing for its decision. The purpose of

relegating the parties first to the Lok Adalat is obviously for
conciliation. In matters like the present one, it is the
bounden duty of the Court to first explore the possibility of
settlement. Such approach alone would serve the legislative
intent of creating Lok Adalats and of providing them
statutory backing for its decision. Any other view would not
only frustrate the legislative intent but also result in affecting
the authority of the Courts to the intent it enables the Court
to require the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of Lok
Adalat in cases where the Court is satisfied that case is an
appropriate case to be referred to the Lok Adalat.”

emphasis applied

37. A complete reading of Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the said Act

indicates that under sub-section (5) of Section 19, the Lok Adalat has

jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement

between the parties in two contingencies. Firstly, in the cases pending

before the Court for which Lok Adalat is organized, and secondly, in

the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Court but not brought

before the Court, i.e. pre-litigation cases within the jurisdiction of the

Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. In both the contingencies

indicated above, the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the cases

30/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

referred to under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 20. When the

parties agree, or one of the parties makes an application, and the

Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement or if

the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken

cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court after giving a reasonable

opportunity of being heard can refer the case to Lok Adalat. If the

Authority or the Committee organizing the Lok Adalat receives

application in pre-litigation cases as referred to in clause (ii) of sub-

section (5) of Section 19 of the said Act, can refer the matter to the Lok

Adalat, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

other party. Thus, for the Lok Adalat to take cognizance of any matter,

a reference by the Court in pending cases or a reference by the

authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat in pre-litigation cases

is mandatory as contemplated under Section 20. In view of Section 21,

the Award made by the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of

a civil court or as the case may be, and shall be final and binding on

the parties. Thus, when parties arrive at any settlement or compromise

before Lok Adalat, the Award has to be made by Lok Adalat and not by

the concerned judge in his capacity as a judge or independently as

31/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

head of the Lok Adalat panel. The Award under Section 21 has to be of

the Lok Adalat, which means the entire Panel of the Lok Adalat.

38. For the reasons recorded above and by relying upon the

aforesaid legal principles settled by this Court in the decisions referred

to above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:

(i) The Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a

compromise or settlement between the parties in two

contingencies: first, in cases pending before the Court for

which Lok Adalat is organized, and second, pre-litigation

cases within the jurisdiction of the Court for which the Lok

Adalat is organized.

(ii) The Lok Adalat can consider pending cases referred by the

Court and pre-litigation cases referred by the Authority or the

Committee organizing the Lok Adalat.

(iii) In the cases pending before the Court, the parties can agree

to refer the case to Lok Adalat, or when one of the parties

makes an application to refer the case to Lok Adalat, and the

Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of

settlement, or if the Court is satisfied that the matter is an

32/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat;

the Court after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard

to all parties can refer the case to Lok Adalat.

(iv) The Authority, or the Committee organizing the Lok Adalat, is

under obligation to follow the procedure contemplated under

Section 20 of the said Act. In the absence of a valid Order by

the concerned Court making a reference under sub-section

(1) of Section 20, the Committee has no authority to transfer

the pending cases to the Lok Adalat directly. Such a reference

directly made by the Authority or the Committee, apart from

being illegal, will also be an exercise in futility, amounting to a

waste of time and would defeat the very purpose and object of

Lok Adalat.

(v) If the Authority or the Committee organizing the Lok Adalat

receives an application in pre-litigation cases falling within the

jurisdiction of any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized,

can refer the matter to the Lok Adalat, after giving a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party, and

on being satisfied that such matter needs to be determined by

33/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

the Lok Adalat.

(vi) Thus, the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of any matter,

provided the court makes a reference in pending cases and

the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat makes a

reference in pre-litigation cases as contemplated under sub-

section (1) or (2) of Section 20.

(vii) Every Lok Adalat, while determining any reference, has to act

with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement

between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of

justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. Thus, the

application of mind by the entire panel of the Lok Adalat is

contemplated before making an Award. Before making an

Award, the whole panel of the Lok Adalat must be satisfied

that the parties have arrived at a compromise or settlement.

Such application of mind and satisfaction must be reflected in

the Award.

(viii) It is the duty of the Lok Adalat to inquire whether the parties

have understood the contents of the compromise or

settlement and whether they have willingly signed. The

34/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

compromise or settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat

must satisfy the same test as laid down under Rule 3 of Order

XXIII of CPC.

(ix) Only to show more figures of disposal of cases in Lok Adalat,

matters cannot be listed before Lok Adalat in undue haste

without following the due procedure contemplated under

Section 20 of the said Act.

(x) When parties arrive at any settlement before Lok Adalat, the

Award has to be made by Lok Adalat and not by the

concerned judge in his capacity as a judge or independently

as head of the Lok Adalat panel. The Award under Section 21

has to be of the Lok Adalat, which means the entire Panel of

the Lok Adalat.

(xi) The procedure contemplated under Section 20, read with

Sections 19 and 21 of the said Act, is not an empty formality.

Only for showing that a large number of cases were disposed

of in Lok Adalat, the mandatory procedures cannot be

bypassed, as it would defeat the very purpose and object of

Lok Adalat. Any Award made in breach of the procedures

35/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

contemplated under Section 20 cannot be termed as a valid

Award under Section 21 of the said Act.

39. Thus, for the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that in

the present case, there is neither an order of reference made as

contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 20 nor an award made

by the Lok Adalat as contemplated under sub-sections (3) and (4) of

Section 20. The endorsement made on Exhibit 1 of the Plaint in

Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 issuing suit summons making it

returnable on a non-working Saturday is illegal. There is no justification

for preparing a board dated 9 th September 2019, which is a non-

working Saturday. Administrative Order dated 6 th September 2017

issued by the Chairman of the Taluka Legal Service Committee cannot

be termed as an Order making a valid reference for transferring the

pending cases to the Lok Adalat. The Committee was under obligation

to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 20 of the said Act.

In the present case, in the absence of a valid Order by the concerned

Court making a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the

Committee had no authority to transfer the pending cases to the Lok

Adalat directly. In the present case, the approach adopted by the

36/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

concerned Court, the Committee and the Lok Adalat panel shows an

undue haste only for the purpose of showing that a large number of

matters were disposed of in Lok Adalat. A complete disregard for the

procedures under the said Act read with the relevant provisions of

CPC, has defeated the very object and purpose of the Lok Adalat.

Hence, the order dated 9th September 2017 passed by the learned 2 nd

Joint CJJD and JMFC, Barshi, below Exhibit 1, disposing of the suit is

clearly without jurisdiction, and the Award of the Lok Adalat is illegal.

40. For the reasons recorded above, it is not necessary to further

examine the objections raised by the learned counsel for the

respondent on delay and latches and the requirement to prove the

allegations amounting to fraud and coercion. Once the Award and the

disposal of the suit are held to be invalid for non-compliance with the

mandatory provisions under the said Act, the petition cannot be

dismissed on the aforesaid objections. The explanations given by the

petitioner in the memo of the petition for invoking the writ jurisdiction of

this Court are justifiable and acceptable. However, the compromise

pursis is on record, but the defendant has disputed it and raised

doubts about its legality and validity. Hence, it is necessary for the

37/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

Court to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under Rule 3 of Order

XXIII of CPC and pass an appropriate order. Thus, for the reasons

recorded above, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

41. Hence, the Petition is allowed by passing the following order:

(i) The order dated 9th September 2017 passed by the learned

2nd Joint CJJD and JMFC, Barshi, below Exhibit 1, and the

Lok Adalat Award dated 9 th September 2017 in Regular Civil

Suit No. 781 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 is restored to the file of the

3rd Joint CJJD Barshi, for disposal on merits.

(iii) The 3rd Joint CJJD Barshi, shall make inquiry on the legality

and validity of the compromise pursis at Exhibit 8, as

contemplated under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of CPC, and pass

appropriate order.

38/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN

901-WP-3743-2021.docx

42. Copy to be sent to the learned Member Secretary of MSLSA for

information and necessary action.

43. The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

39/39

::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2024 11:37:06 :::