Ram Bahadur Yadav v. Special Lok Adalat Through Its President & Ors.

which has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is kept on record. As the petitioner took specific stand that he did not have any knowledge about institution of the suit before the Court below, by an order dated 26.7.2013, this Court had called for the records of P.S. Case No. 93 of 2002 from the Court of 3 Sub-Judge-I, Madhubani so as to ascertain whether, before making reference to Lok Adalat learned Court below did follow the procedure prescribed under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Act, 1987 which lays down, inter alia, the procedure for making reference to Lok Adalat and for taking cognizance of the case by Lok Adalat. The records of the Court below have been received which I have perused. From the records, it appears that the petitioner who was the defendant in said partition suit had not filed his written statement. Issues were not framed. There is an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Madhubani dated

30.8.2003 which reads thus:- ^^ mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls mifLFkfr vftZr dh xbZ iqdkj ij mHk; i{k ,oa muds fo}ku vf/koDrk fo”ks’k yksx vk0 esa mifLFkfr gq, mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk nkf[ky lqygukek vkosnu fnukad 30-7-03 izpkfyr djrs gq, izkFkZuk fd, fd mHk; i{kksa ds chp lqyg oks rlfo;k gks pqdk gS A** “Both the parties have put their attendance through their learned Counsel. Let the Office place it before Lok Adalat on 30.7.2003 for disposal. ( Translation mine) Before I proceed further, certain statutory provisions as contained in Legal Services Authority Act, 1987and the Code of Civil Procedure need to be taken note of. Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 provides the manner in which the 4 Lok Adalat may take cognizance of a matter on reference made by the Court concerned. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with settlement of disputes outside the Court by referring the matter to arbitration/conciliation/judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat/Mediation. Section 89 of the Code reads thus:- “89. Settlement of dispute outside the Court.- (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for- (a) arbitration; (b) conciliation; (c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; (d) mediation (2) Where a dispute has been referred- (a) for arbitration conciliation the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( 26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of the Act. (b) To Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ( 39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat; (c) For judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be 5 deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ( 39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) For mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.” One bare reading Section 89 of the Code it will appear that before a matter is referred by the Court for settlement to one of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms ( ADRM for short) as indicated above, the Court has to form prima facie opinion that there exists element of settlement which may acceptable to the parties. The Court under the said provisions is required to have observations of the parties on his opinion about chance of settlement of dispute outside the Court. Rule 1 A of Order X of the Code specifically lays down the stage when the Court may refer the matter for settlement under Section 89 of the Code to one of the four ADRMs and reads thus:- “Rule 1-A. Direction of the Court to opt for any one mode of alternative dispute resolution- After recording the admissions and denials, the Court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt either mode of the settlement outside the Court as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 89. On the option of the parties, the Court shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority as may be opted by the parties.” The stage of Order 10 Rule 1 would arise only after 6 filing of the written statement and framing of the issues. Further, there has to be a satisfaction by the concerned Court before referring a matter to Lok Adalat that there exists chances of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties. I find from the order of learned Sub-Judge-I, Madhubani dated 7.8.2003 that there is no such satisfaction recorded and the reference was made in a casual manner without even having the views of the parties concerned. I have perused the photo copy of the sale deed dated

23.7.1979 towards which my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to demonstrate that the petitioner was in fact able to read and write. Though I cannot reach to a definite opinion on the basis of the signature of the petitioner as available on the said zeroxed copy of the sale deed and that occurring on the vakalatnama and attendance filed before the Court below but I must observe that inconsistency in such signature are apparent. However, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that reference made by the Court below by order dated 7.8.2003 to Lok Adalat for settlement through compromise is in teeth of statutory provision. The award passed by the Special Lok Adalat in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. I hold that reference made by the Court of learned Sub- 7 Judge-I, Madhubani to Lok Adalat is not in the manner prescribed under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act and it was a mechanical reference. Such award, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly, quashed. The party shall, however, be at liberty to approach the learned Court below for fresh reference in accordance with the law upon which the Court may pass appropriate orders adhering to provisions as contained in Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 read with relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Arun Kumar/-