The Lok Adalat's jurisdiction to pass an award is contingent on all parties entering into a compromise or settlement, and the award is not binding on parties who have not entered into a compromise.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-11-1998 passed by the first and second respondents in O. S. No. 274/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bhalki, vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and grant such other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nutshell are;that according to the case of the petitioner, petitioners 1 and 2 are the father and son and they belong to joint Hindu family. They claimed to have joint interest in the suit property. Respondent No. 3 in the present case has filed a suit in O. S. No. 274/1998 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ). Bhalki, for declaration of joint ownership and joint possession regarding the suit land bearing Sy. No. 210/1 and 2 measuring 35 guntas of Bhalki and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and also for correction of the Record of Rights by entering the name of the plaintiff as joint owner as well as for other reliefs as mentioned above in the suit. Later, it appears that a compromise petition was filed signed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. It may also be mentioned here that though defendants 1 to 3 were served and the service of summons was taken to be sufficient, but they did not appear. Later on, defendant 2 made the application for setting aside the ex parte order made against him which was allowed. Later on, the compromise petition was filed which was signed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition. The order sheet of the case reveals that by order dated 27-11-1998 the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bhalki, referred the matter to Lok Adalat for disposal according to the Legal Authorities Act and on 28-11-1998 the Lok Adalat passed the order decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise. The decree which has been passed is the part of the order sheet vide Annexure-'e' has been marked as Annexure-F. The petitioners have challenged the decree on the ground that the petitioners have not entered into any compromise, nor did they sign the compromise petition nor produced any compromise memo. The further case of the petitioners is that they did not file any compromise petition and that no notice of reference of the case to the Lok Adalat had been given to the petitioners-defendants. The petitioners case is that they moved the application for Setting aside the decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Court below rejected the said application taking the view that it had no jurisdiction and the petitioners should move the High Court for appropriate orders in view of Section 21 of the Legal Authorities Act. As such, the petitioners have come up before this Court by writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the decree prima facie shows that the decree is based on the compromise between the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 4. The decree does not provide that the suit is being decreed ex parte against the present petitioners. The learned counsel contended that as such there has been no decision of the suit so far as defendants 1 and 3 are concerned i. e. , the present petitioners are concerned. He further contended, the Lok Adalat could pass the order on the basis of the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties to the suit i. e. , all parties to the suit. Therefore, it may be held that the decree which has been passed is illegal, null and void and that it is not binding on the petitioners and it may be quashed as being without jurisdiction as well as illegal. The learned counsel further contended that no notice was issued either from or by the learned Civil Court intimating that the case has been referred to the Lok Adalat, nor did the Lok Adalat issue any notice to the petitioners that the case has been referred for disposal before it by compromise, nor called upon t