The judgment emphasized the importance of a trial on all questions of facts and law between the parties and highlighted the limitations of the Lok Adalat's adjudicatory functions.

( 1 ) APPELLANT is a scheduled Bank. By impugned order A. D. J. , Ganjbasoad sitting in Lok Adalat on 21-2-93 granted a decree for (a) Rs. 33003. 88 with interest @ 4% per annum from the date of institution of suit i. e. 23-11-87. (b) facility of payment of the same in six equal instalments to the respondent was given with a default clause. (c) both parties had to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case and looking to the penury of the respondent. (d) certified Advocate's fee was to be added to the decree. (e) Court-fees paid was ordered to be returned to the appellant.

( 2 ) APPELLANT had filed this civil suit on 23-11-87 for recovery of Rs. 36,603. 88/- with interest @ 14% per annum since 25-9-87 with the prayer for recovery of the same amount by sale of plot equitably mortgaged.

( 3 ) ON 21-2-93 at Lok Adalat held at Basoda the respondent filed an application claiming that only Rs. 20,000/- were advanced to him as loan out of which Rs. 9,000/- have been deposited before the suit. After suit also Rs. 300/- on 14-10-87 and Rs. 500/- on 11-1-88 have been paid. That a decree was given after adjusting this amount in the original loan cost of suit and future interest be exempted as the respondent is invalid and had suffered due to incendiary in his house. Facility of six yearly instalments was also prayed. Interest if allowed be payable from date of decree. Cost of suit and interest were left to be decided by the Court. Rs. 3000/- were deposited by respondent in Lok Adalat and were accepted by the Bank Manager.

( 4 ) CERTAINLY, this application was not signed by the Bank Manager or by any authorised person on behalf of the appellant-Bank. The Court had given the decree on the basis that the respondent had admitted the claim of the appellant.

( 5 ) THE appellant has the grievance that the respondent had not fully admitted the claim of the Bank. The trial Court could not without holding trial and giving an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence could not have refused to grant the contracted rate of interest or deprived the appellant of costs or a decree for sale of the mortgaged plot and could not grant relief of instalments.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that decree being based on consent is not appealable in view of S. 96 (3) of the CPC which reads as follows : 3. No Appeal shall lie from a decree passed by a Court with the consent of the parties. According to her in the Lok Adalat, the Advocate of Bank and the Branch Manager of the Bank were present. Branch Manager had accepted Rs. 3000/- in cash and thus had agreed to the decree against which no appeal is competent. Certainly, the application was not signed by the Branch Manager or the Advocate for the Bank or by any person authorised to compound of behalf of the Bank. The same was not an application for record of agreement of compromise between the parties contemplated under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC. Demand of the claim by the respondent was not unqualified. 6-A. Order XV of the CPC prescribes the procedure for disposal of suit at first hearing. Under Rule 1 the Court may at once pronounce a judgment if the parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact. Rule 2 provides that where out of several defendants one or more defendants are not at issue the Court may pronounce judgment at once for or against such defendants. Certainly, if parties are on issue holding of the trial is necessary or mandatory.

( 7 ) IN the present case parties were at issue on following points : (a) Rate and amount of interest - Appellant claimed it to be 14% per annum since 25-9-87 pendente lite and after the decree. Respondent first claimed that he be excused from payment of interest and then claimed interest @ 4% from the date of decree be awarded. The Court awarded interest @ 4% per annum since the date of suit i. e. 23-11-87 to the date of payment. (b) Costs of suit - Appellant claimed cost of suit. B