P. Sam Koshy, J.

The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Bench No. 13, Raipur on 06.12.2014 in Succession Case No. 06/2006.

2. The brief facts in nutshell relevant for the adjudication of the present Petition is that Respondent No. 2 was plaintiff before the Court below. He had initially filed suit before the First Civil Judge, Class -1, Raipur seeking succession under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act on 19.08.1998 which was subsequently renumbered as Succession Case No. 06/06. The Petitioner before this Court was Defendant No. 2 before the Court below. The present Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the Court below. And the application under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte order was also dismissed by the Court below. Meanwhile, the Lok Adalat was held on 06.12.2014 whereby the Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff made a request for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. Accordingly the case was put forth before the Lok Adalat.

3. It is pertinent to mention that when the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat held on 06.12.2014, no fresh notices were issued to any of the parties particularly the present Petitioner who was Defendant No. 2 before the Court below in respect of the matter being referred to Lok Adalat. For this reason he could not appear before the Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014 for resolving the dispute amicably, between the parties. All the contesting parties except the present Petitioner had entered into an agreement (Raji Nama) in respect of the distribution of the suit property among the legal heirs of late Indu Agrawal who also happens to be the step mother of the present Petitioner also entitled for a share in the suit property. The said Raji Nama was executed without the knowledge of the present Petitioner, neither was he a signatory to the said Raji Nama which the other legal heirs of Late Indu Agrawal proposed and they also accepted for a share to be given to the Petitioner to the extent of 1/6th of the property in the name of Late Indu Agrawal. Accordingly, the suit i.e. the Succession Case No. 06/06 was disposed off on 06.12.2014 in accordance with the terms entered into in the Raji Nama. It is only when subsequently Defendant No. 1, 3 and 4 filed a caveat petition against the disposal of the case before the Lok Adalat was served to the Petitioner only then he came to know about the disposal of the civil suit. Hence this present Petition seeking for recalling of the order passed by the Lok Adalat and for listing of the case for disposal on its merits.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matters which are disposed off in Lok Adalat are all invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter for short 'the Act). According to the Counsel for the Petitioner the said provision of law requires providing opportunity of being heard to the parties before the matter is referred to the Lok Adalat. This also implies that all the parties to the dispute before the Civil Court are required to be noticed either before sending the matter to the Lok Adalat or when the matter is registered before Lok Adalat. It should also be ensured that all the parties to the dispute are agreeing for the disposal of the suit. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner merely because the Petitioner has been proceeded ex-parte before the suit does not mean other contesting parties have right for taking unilateral decision including interest of the Petitioner without even taking consent of or being intimated about the matter being placed before the Lok Adalat. Thus prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Lok Adalat on 06.12.2014 and ordering the matter to be decided on merits afresh by the Court below.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-plaintiff submitted that the Civil Court in the instant case was proceeded ex-parte against the Pet