AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned senior counsel representing the private respondent no. 1.

2. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of private respondent that the appeal is not maintainable against an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under Letter Patent Appeal jurisdiction, seems to be valid in terms of the decision rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Imteyaz Ahmad vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2017 (1) PLJR 30.

3. Submission of learned senior counsel for the appellants that the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the so-called “Permanent Lok Adalat” could not have been decided under Article 227 is a misnomer and misplaced kind of submission to make because the power of the Writ Court has to be exercised as power of supervision under Article 227 of a decree passed by a Permanent Lok Adalat.

4. The Court is also constrained to note that forums of Permanent Lok Adalat are being misused by dishonest litigants in connivance with certain Judicial Officers, who have superannuated and are invited to man such forums. Such cases of misuse have trickled down to this Court on one to many occasions. Besides, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the jurisdiction and the subjects on which power can be exercised by such Lok Adalats and rightly come to a finding that a partition suit cannot be filed directly in a Lok Adalat.

5. The decision of the learned Single Judge even on merit seems to be absolutely correct in law. In fact, such cases should be discouraged by coming down heavily on such litigants by imposing extraordinary cost upon them.

6. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.