JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.20-A/2012 whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the claim holding it to be barred by the principles of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Rajinder Singh Ajmani instituted a suit claiming specific performance of contract with regard to the property in question bearing Nazul Sheet No.41 Plot No.86/1 and 2.40 acres situated at Puchpara (Raigarh) by submitting inter alia that it was agreed to be sold by one Bhaguram, the predecessor in interest of Defendant No.1 (Fulkunwar), Defendant No.2-Raghunath (since deceased now represented by his legal representatives namely Phul Bai and others) and Defendants No.3 & 4 (Ku. Asha Chakradhari and Gopi Chakradhari) by executing the agreement to sale dated 21.01.1997 for a consideration of Rs.9,60,000/- upon receiving the earnest amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is pleaded that since the religious monastery ( math), which was situated over it and therefore, the registered deed of sale was required to be executed for its removal by the vendors. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have obtained a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sale from him on different dates and despite of his request, the said monastery was not removed and instead, have tried to alienate the same to someone else, therefore, the notice dated 30.03.2012 was issued by him and for its specific performance, pre-litigation claim was instituted before the permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987). It is pleaded further that in the said proceedings, the Defendants have submitted a compromise application after receiving the rest of the sale consideration and have assured to execute the registered deed of sale within a period of 10 days. However, they failed to execute the same, which led to the institution of the suit on 02.07.2012 in the instant nature.

3. The Defendants, in their written statement, have accepted the claim of the Plaintiff and have raised no objection if a decree for a specific performance of contract is granted in his favour.

4. The trial Court, by its impugned judgment and decree, has arrived at a conclusion that since the said pre-litigation claim bearing No.139/2012 as instituted by the Plaintiff has been closed by the Lok Adalat vide order dated 06.05.2012 declining to grant the relief of specific performance of contract, therefore, the suit as framed seeking the same relief is hit by the principles of res judicata as provided under Section 11 of the CPC and in consequence, rejected the Plaint.

5. The question which arises for determination in this Appeal is:-

“Whether the Court below has committed an illegality in holding that the claim as made for specific performance of contact is hit by the principles of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC ?”

6. Shri Palash Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff, while referring to the order dated 06.05.2012 passed in pre-litigation Case No.139/2012 by the permanent Lok Adalat at Raigarh submits that in fact, the said authority, without entering into the merits of the case, has disposed of the same by granting liberty to the parties to take a recourse before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and as such, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the claim holding it to be barred by the principles of res judicata. According to him, the principles of res judicata would be attracted only if the case is decided by a speaking order upon adjudicating the issues of the parties. It is contended further that since the permanent Lok Adalat h