( 1 ) HEARD Sri Jai Shanker audichya Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri G. C. Saxena Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) ONCE Sri Jitendra Pal Singh expired on 24th March, 2001. Smt. Beena Singh (respondent No. 1) claiming herself to be the wife of the said deceased, filed an application for issuance of succession certificate in respect of the amount due to Sri Jitendra pal Singh towards pay, gratuity, insurance etc. before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), farrukhabad. The application so filed was registered as Misc. Case No. 76 of 2001.

( 3 ) THE application was allowed under order of the Court dated 26-4-2001. In the said application, the petitioner namely Smt. Jai Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, was not impleaded as one of the defendants. Therefore, on coming to know about the order dated 26-4-2001, passed by the Civil judge, the mother (petitioner) filed an application for recall of the said order and for impleadment as defendants. The application so filed was allowed by the Court below and the petitioner (mother) was impleaded as one of the defendants in the succession application.

( 4 ) ON record is an order passed by the civil Judge dated 16-4-2004, whereby the matter was directed to proceed ex parte against the petitioner (mother ). However, an application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 16-4-2004. The application, which was numbered as Application No. 58c-2, was fixed for orders on 31st July, 2004. 4a. On 1-8-2004 Misc. Case No. 76 of 2001 field by the alleged wife for issuance of the succession certificate was listed before the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat by means of its judgment and order dated 1st August, 2004 dierected that Smt. Beena Singh would be entitled to succeed to half share in the property of Jitendra Pal Singh, while in respect of the other half, the mother was held to be the successor. Since the aforesaid order was passed by the Lock Adalat in absence of the petitioner and without any joint application having being filed by the petitioner and since the petitioner was challenging the very factum of marriage of Smt. Beena Singh with Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, she preferred an appeal against the order dated 1-8-2004 before the District Judge, farrukhabad, The appeal so filed was numbered as Appeal No. 52 of 2004. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, farrukhabad has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8-11-2004 on the ground that the order dated 1 -8-2004 has been passed by the Lok Adalat and against such an order no appeal is provided for. The order dated 1-8-2004 passed by the Lok Adalat and dated 8-11-2004 passed in appeal filed by the petitioner are under challenge in the present writ petition.

( 5 ) SO far as the order dated 8-11-2004 is concerned, Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceeded that the appeal, as filed by the petitioner, was legally not maintainable and therefore it is submitted that the merits of the order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 1-4-2004 itself may be adjudicated upon by this Court inasmuch as no other remedy is available under law against the said order.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondent has not been able to dispute the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and the parties have also agreed that this Court may adjudicate upon the merits of the order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 1-8-2004 itself.

( 7 ) LOK Adalat have been constituted under the provisions of the Legal Service authorities Act, 1987. Section 20 of the Act provides the procedure for taking cognizance of causes by Lok Adalat and disposal of the same. Section 21 (2) provides that every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. For ready reference Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 are being quoted herein below :"20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document