ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed for seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus / certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus / certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Tharad in Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2015 (at ANNEXURE-E hereto) and further be pleased to restore Regular Civil Suit no. 50 of 2015 and further be pleased to direct expeditious hearing of the Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2015 pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Tharad;

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of impugned order dated 22.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Tharad in Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2015 (at ANNEXURE-E hereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondents herein maintain status-quo property in question;

with regard to to the (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and case;”

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Pursuant to the submissions made at the bar, this Court passed the order on 30.01.2024. Subsequent to that, the Registrar General has submitted a detailed report indicating that the impugned order passed by the trial court is based on the withdrawal pursis dated 22.07.2018, signed by the concerned advocate, whereby the Court has passed the order on 22.07.2018 below Exh.1 by considering the withdrawal pursis below Exh.13 and the dispute between the parties has been settled as if in the Lok Adalat, which is erroneous. Accordingly, the Addl. Civil Judge, Tharad has passed the order in Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2015 for withdrawal.

4. When the Court has come across such a situation, it has been taken by surprise, questioning (i) whether the presiding officer himself can pass such order as it is pqassed by the Lok Adalat? and (ii) whether, in the absence of the parties as mandated under the provisions of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court can permit withdrawal of the suit proceedings solely based on a withdrawal pursis filed by the concerned advocate, especially when it is neither signed nor counter-signed by the plaintiff or any of the parties to the suit proceedings?

5. It is also noteworthy to refer to the provisions of Order 3 Rules 1 and 4. The advocate on behalf of plaintiff can file such application for withdrawal of the pursis.

6. Following that, the earlier order was passed, wherein a report was sought from the Registrar General as well as the concerned authorities. The Presiding Officer at the relevant point of time has also submitted his report, trying to justify his action by stating that he passed the order in Lok Adalat, and therefore, the said order is deemed as correct.

7. Considering the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as under:

“19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.—

(1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.

(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of— (a) serving or retired judicial officers; and (b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat.

(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall b