1. All these appeals have been filed by the appellants – original plaintiffs under Section 96 of CPC, challenging the order dated 11.2.2017 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Dhangadhra in the Lok Adalat dismissing the suits on the ground that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said suits.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the First Appeal No. 2201 of 2017 are considered.

3. As per the case of the appellant – original plaintiff Electricity Company, the suit being No.231 of 2016 was filed in the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Dhangadhra for recovery of the amount of electricity bill issued to the opponent – original defendant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 read with the Regulation No. 7.6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code. It appears that the suit was directed to be placed in the Lok Adalat, in which the following order was passed on 11.2.2017 below Exh.1 of the said suit :-

xxxx

4. The afore-stated order is under challenge before this Court by way of appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

5. The learned Advocate Mr. Asit Mehta, appearing for the respondent – original defendant raising the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the appeal has submitted that there was no decree drawn pursuant to the impugned order passed in Lok Adalat, and therefore, the appeal under Section 96 of CPC was not maintainable. He also relied upon the provisions contained in Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Authorities Act”) to contend that the order made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties to the dispute and no appeal could lie in any case against such order. Mr. Mehta has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Vs. Ramesh D. Devnani, reported in 2005(1) GLH 298 to submit that there being no complaint filed by the appellant – plaintiff under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of the bill on the ground of theft of electric energy. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in case of Barot Vitthalbhai Damodardas Vs. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel and Anr., reported in (2009) 2 GLH 135 and the decision in case of Parimal Bhogilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 10(3) GLR 2514, as also in case of Bhagabat Sit Vs. Balaram Sit, reported in AIR 1963 Orissa 61.

6. Per contra, the learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the appellant, pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 21(1) of the Authorities Act, submitted that every order of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court, and therefore, the appeal under Section 96 of CPC would be maintainable, more particularly when the impugned order has determined the jurisdiction of the Court, and not the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties in the Lok Adalat. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Torrent Power A.E.C. Limited Vs. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006(2) GLR 1580 to submit that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff in respect of the electricity bill raised by the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act read with Regulation No.7.6.5 of the Electricity Code.

7. So far as the provisions with regard to the cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalat is concerned, Section 20 provides inter alia 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 t