IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a valid reference to Lok Adalat is mandatory for its jurisdiction, and failure to comply with this requirement invalidates any award made.

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Patil waives service for respondent no. 1 (“respondent”), and Mr. Kanade waives service for respondent no. 2. In view of the order dated 8th May 2024, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. This petition is filed by the original defendant to challenge the Award passed by the Lok Adalat disposing of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat. The petitioner challenges the Award on the ground that he never intended to settle the dispute and was unaware that his signature was obtained on the settlement terms.

3. Considering the controversy involved in the petition, by order dated 9th January 2024, the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition to add Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (“MSLSA”) as a party respondent in the petition.

4. The respondent filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 in the Civil Court at Barshi. The suit was filed on 1st September 2017 and was registered as a Regular Civil Suit on 4th September 2017. It is the petitioner’s case that he had never received any suit summons, and there was no reference made as contemplated under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“said Act”). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as instructed by the original plaintiff, the petitioner appeared before the Lok Adalat on 9th September 2017, and the settlement award was passed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen with 95% physical disability. The petitioner’s father had three sons and three daughters. There was partition during the lifetime of his father, and the same was recorded in the revenue records by way of Mutation Entry No. 566. Accordingly, separate entries in the name of the co-sharers were made in the revenue records, and the petitioner and his brother started cultivating their own land separately. In the year 2010, the petitioner’s brother Trimbak expired, and the names of his widow, son and two daughters were entered in the revenue records. Trimbak’s son is the plaintiff in the present matter. It is the petitioner’s case that Trimbak’s son, i.e. respondent herein, filed a false claim against the petitioner by way of aforesaid RCS No. 781 of 2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent brought the petitioner before the Lok Adalat panel, and under the respondent’s undue influence, the petitioner signed the compromise pursis based on which the suit stood disposed of before the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unaware that his signature was taken on the compromise terms to be filed before the Lok Adalat.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without making a valid reference as required under Section 20 of the said Act, the panel of Lok Adalat would not get any jurisdiction to dispose of the suit. In the present case, the suit summons was not served upon the petitioner, and without following the mandatory procedure under Section 20 of the said Act, the suit was listed before the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the very object of the said Act is frustrated in view of the procedure followed in the present case. Hence, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the object of the said Act.

8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Namdeo Hambira Babar and Others vs. Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Others, 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 932. He submitted that this Court, in the said decision, held that the procedure as prescribed under Section 20 of the said Act regarding making a reference to the Lok Adalat is mandatory. He submitted that in view of the legal principles settled by this Court, it is obligatory on the