Full Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. Respondent 1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 142 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gokak. Petitioner herein was the 1st defendant in the suit. Respondents 2 to 5 were defendants 2 to 5 before the Trial Court. In the suit, no summons were served on the petitioner who was the 1st defendant before the Trial Court. Without service of summons on him, he was placed ex parte. The case was adjourned from 9-12-2003 to 5-1-2004. On an application filed by the plaintiff, case was advanced from 5-1-2004 to 17-12-2003. On the request of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. Accordingly, matter was taken up before the Adalat on the same day. Before the Adalat, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 filed a compromise petition. Plaintiffs Counsel also filed an application to abandon the claim against 1st defendant who is the petitioner before this Court. Based on the application filed by the plaintiff, suit against the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Adalat and later on compromise was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. This order is called in question in this writ petition by the petitioner.
2. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, Adalat has no power to pass any order on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC to dismiss the suit or abandon the claim against the petitioner. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Adalat can proceed to dispose of the case or a matter and arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by principles of justice, equity, fair-play and other legal principles. According to her, in the present case, by abandoning the suit against the 1st defendant based on the compromise petition filed between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, a final decree is passed even allotting certain extent of land to the petitioner herein in his absence and it is her specific case that while entering into compromise, self-acquired properties of the petitioner are also divided between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. Therefore, she requests this Court to quash the order passed by the Lok Adalat in obtaining the claim against the petitioner and accepting the compromise. Learned Counsel for the respondents, made an attempt to support the order passed by the Adalat.
3. Having heard the Counsel for both the parties, what is to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is that whether Adalat is justified in accepting the compromise petition by abandoning the claim against the petitioner herein and while accepting the compromise whether Adalat has followed the principles of justice, equity and fair-play.
4. Annexure-F is the copy of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 before the Adalat. In para 4 certain extent of properties are also allotted to the share of the petitioner who was the 1st defendant before the Trial Court. But unfortunately, petitioner herein is not a party to the compromise arrived at before the Adalat and it is seen from the order sheet maintained by the Lok Adalat that Adalat has passed a judicial order on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC permitting the plaintiff to abandon the claim against the 1st defendant and dismissing the suit against the 1st defendant/petitioner. From looking into the compromise which is accepted by the Adalat, it is clear that in the absence of the petitioner, certain properties are also allotted to the share of the petitioner and a final decree is drawn though the suit is dismissed against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Adalat has exceeded its jurisdiction in accepting such compromise petition and also in passing a judicial order on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC to abandon the claim against the petitioner herein. Therefore, petition is required to be allowed.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Order passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No. 142 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gokak, dated 17-12-2003 is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Petitioner is permitted to file written statement within 60 days from today and if such written statement is filed, same shall be considered by the Trial Court on merits and in accordance with law.