Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

2. Petitioner had filed IA No.8 in O.S. No. 5614/1999, to implead him as additional defendant therein, claiming that he is co-owner of the properties involved in the said suit. Respondent No. 13 herein, had filed the said suit against respondent Nos.1 to 12, for a decree of declaration. permanent injunction and other reliefs. The said suit had been contested by some of the defendants therein. There was litigation between the parties, details of which is not required to be noticed, keeping in view the point that arise herein, for decision making.

3. Petitioner had filed IA No.8 in the said suit on 8.7.2005. Plaintiff in the suit had taken time to file objections to IA No.8 and the suit was adjourned to 1.8.2005. IA No.8 was not considered and no order was passed therein till 16.09.2005. The suit was set down for framing of issues by 19.12.2005. On 26.11.2005, plaintiff in the suit had filed an application for advancement of the suit from 19.12.2005 to 27.11.2005. Copy of said application was not served on the Advocate appearing for the petitioner herein, despite the pendency of IA No.8 for consideration. The trial Court has allowed the application for advancement filed by the plaintiff and without hearing the parties, has sent the suit record, to Lok Adalat which was held on 27.11.2005, wherein a compromise petition dated 27.11.2005 was was accepted and it has ordered to draw a decree in terms of the compromise petition. In pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2005, a decree has been drawn in terms of the compromise petition filed before the Lok Adalat. Questioning the order and decree dated 27.11.2005 of the trial Court and the Lok Adalat, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Respondent No. 13 has filed statement of objections and additional statement of objections, resisting the relief prayed in the writ petition.

5. Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the learned judge of the trial Court could not have preponed the suit without the application for preponment being served on the petitioner who had filed IA No.8 nor could have referred the suit for settlement before the Lok Adalat, without hearing and the consent of the parties. Learned Senior Counsel contended that, the proceedings of the trial Court dated 25.11.2005 resulting in the compromise decree dated 27.11.2005 passed by the Lok Adalat is totally illegal and in in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (‘Act’ for short). Learned Senior Counsel contended that, the award made by the Lok Adalat or the decree drawn dated 27. 11.2005 as contrary to the provisions of the Act.

6. Sri M. Ram Bhat, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Siddamallappa and other learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that, the petitioner herein was not a party to the suit and his application for impleadment having not been allowed, is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to file writ petition against the proceedings of the trial Court and the Lok Adalat. They further contended that the petitioner has filed a separate suit, in view of which, it is not permissible for him to maintain the writ petition. Learned Counsel further contended that, it could be inferred by this Court, that, by the order dated 25.11.2005, advancement of the suit was allowed and from perusal of the order sheet of trial Court it could be seen, that there was a prayer for reference to the Lok Adalat, in view of which, the suit record was sent to the Lok Adalat for settlement and therefore there is no illegality committed by the trial Court or in the matter of decree ordered to be drawn by the Lok Adalat and the decree drawn thereafter.

7. Considering the rival contentions, the record of the writ petition, the record of O.S.No. 5614/1999 of the trial Court, which was secured at the time of hearing o