The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only be invoked when there is an element of settlement between the parties.

T.N.K. Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ng. Premkumar, learned Advocate and Mr. A. Bimol, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2. The following facts in a nutshell will be sufficient for deciding the present writ petition:

On 14.3.1984 there was a volley ball match at Naoria Pakhanglakpa Volley Ball Ground at Heirangoithong, Imphal and there were about 3000 (three thousand) spectators including the present Petitioners No. 3, 4, 5 and other members of CRPF. Suddenly, the CRPF personnel witnessing the said volley ball match fired several rounds from their service firearms in or around the said volleyball ground. In the said incident 13 (thirteen) civilians/spectators were injured and also one CRPF constable died. For the said unfortunate incident Shri Y. Ibotombi Singh, the then District and Sessions Judge, (later on Judge of the Gauhati High Court), was appointed by the Government of Manipur under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 for holding an inquiry. For claiming compensation a number of civil suits including the present Original Suit were filed by the legal representatives of those thirteen civilians who were killed in the said incident before the competent Civil Court. While the said civil suit was pending before the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East at Imphal, the Respondents filed an application under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 20(1)(i)(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 referring connected civil suits to the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement and disposal of the original suit. The Respondents filed he said application for referring to the Lok Adalat only on the ground which are quoted hereunder:

6. That the Plaintiff/Petitioner is destitute of any adequate means at all to bear the expenses of litigation, particularly when it has been prolongated now for nearly two decades. They are desirous of and agreeable to have his case referred to the concerned Lok Adalat for settlement.

7. That the futility of protracted litigation in civil suits yielding no discernible result and relief is to be abhorred and despised so as to constrain all litigants of ordinary prudence to aspire for settlement of the matter in dispute on reasonable terms and conditions.

8. That the Plaintiff/Petitioners have the firm belief that there are chances of such settlement as aforesaid and that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. In this connection, it will be expedient to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Defendant's/opposite parties in order to ascertain whether there are chances of settlement as afore-mentioned.

3. To the said application of the Respondents under Section 89, Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 20(1)(i)(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the present Petitioners filed objection seriously objecting that there is absolutely no element of settlement of the said suit which may be acceptable to them. The main ground of objection taken by the present Petitioners in the said objection are quoted hereunder:

7. That with reference to para No. 6 of the application, it is to state again that the Plaintiff has to prove that he/she is an indigent person as the burden of proving the same lies on him/her. The Plaintiff/Petitioner himself/herself is also responsible for prolonged litigation as he/she has not pressed the Court for speedy disposal of the case. As far as the matter of referring the case to the Lok Adalat, it is to state that the same can be referred only when both parties mutually agree for a compromise or settlement in the instant case, it is very clear that the CRPF have no fault whatsoever insofar as it relates to the said firing incident and as such the question of accepting the claims made by the Plaintiff and the question of coming to a compromise does not c