The Lok Adalath has no adjudicatory function and can only resolve disputes when the parties agree to compromise or settle. The absence of the parties' signatures invalidates the compromise, and the Lok Adalath cannot accept a compromise in the absence of the parties.

Plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition seeking for setting aside the award/decree dated 07.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.54/2004 by the Lok Adalath and District Legal Service Authority, Udupi District, Udupi, which is produced in this case as Annexure-A.

2. Plaintiffs-Govardhana and Srinivasa filed O.S.No.54/2004 for partition and separate possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties in fair and equal manner and for cancellation of partition deed executed on 15.03.2004 in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance and contested the matter. They sought for dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed. Case was posted for trial. At that stage, on a request made by the parties, the suit was referred to Lok Adalath. In the Lok Adalath, a compromise petition was filed on 07.04.2007. Thereafter, the first plaintiff filed miscellaneous application before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi for setting aside the said decree. The said application came to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable, reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalath before the appropriate forum. It is after the said order passed on 18.01.2012, the present writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalath.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs assailing the impugned award contends that the plaintiffs have not affixed their signatures to the compromise; award/decree is passed on the basis of a compromise signed by their counsel. The same is patently illegal and therefore, requires to be set aside. It is on the basis of the signature of their advocate, compromise is recorded and an award/decree is passed which is patently illegal and therefore, he submits the impugned award requires to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents submits that the parties have entered into a memorandum of family arrangement and subsequently, a partition deed is also executed. When the parties arrived at a settlement, the advocate, on the plaintiffs’ instructions has affixed his signature to the compromise petition. Therefore, the said compromise fully binds the plaintiffs and the award cannot be set side on the ground that the plaintiffs are not parties to the compromise or that they have not affixed the signatures to the compromise petition.

5. In the light of the above, the following point arises for consideration in this writ petition:

Whether a dispute can be resolved by an award/decree before the Lok Adalath in the absence of the parties or without the parties affixing their signatures to the compromise?

6. Sub-Section (5) of Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) reads as under:

A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of

(i) any case pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized:

Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 provides for Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. It reads as under:

“(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (1) of subsection (5) of Section 19-

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or

(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalath, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such Court except after g