Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that since a pure question of law is involved in the matter, the matter may be disposed of without noticing Respondent No. 5 - Gram Panchayat Sarpanch Pachri and also issuance of notice to Respondent No. 6 is not necessary, as per law. On due consideration, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage without issuance of notice to Respondent No. 5.

2. The brief facts required for disposal of the instant W.P. (227) are that Civil Suit No. 183A of 1997 (New Number 102A of 2011) (Jagdish and 3 Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others) was pending before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. During pendency of the said civil suit, on 7.2.2012, at the request of both the parties the matter was referred for disposal as per relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short Act of 1987). On 4.3.2012, the matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat and the Plaintiffs' prayed that they do not want to prosecute the suit further hence, the suit may be dismissed for non-prosecution in the Lok Adalat. As prayed, the civil suit is dismissed for non-prosecution in the Lok Adalat.

3. The Plaintiffs/Petitioners have challenged the said order before this Court praying that the matter requires interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 4.3.2012 is without any authority of law as per provisions of Section 20 Sub-section (5) of the Act of 1987 since no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties. The record of the case ought to have been returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under Sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs/Petitioners further submits that as per provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 20 of the Act of 1987 the Court having jurisdiction to hear the matter where the record of the case is returned under Sub-section (5) of the Act of 1987 to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1987 thereby it is submitted that as the order passed by the Lok Adalat is beyond jurisdiction hence, the same may be set aside and the case may be sent back to the Court below for further hearing/trial under the provisions of law.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners supported the grounds taken in the petition and prayed that as per the provisions of Section 20 Sub-section (1) (5) (7) of the Act of 1987 the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be sent back for further hearing to the Court from where it was referred to the Lok Adalat.

6. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 opposed the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

7. For the appreciation of the facts and the relief as prayed in the instant writ petition and also the arguments advanced in this behalf by the Petitioners, provisions of law as contained in Section 20 sub-section (1) (5) (7) are perused which are as under:

"[20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats:-

(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) 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 Adalat, 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 giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at betw