IMPORTANT POINT
The Permanent Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction over non-public utility services and its awards are null if not grounded in proper jurisdiction as per the Legal Services Authorities Act.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Anju Narain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 09-11-2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Title Appeal No. 74 of 2011, whereby the learned First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned Munsif, Bhabua in Title Suit No. 03 of 2010, whereby the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’).

3. The plaintiff is the appellant in the instant Second Appeal.

4. The plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents. The plaintiff/appellant had claimed title and possession over the suit land on the basis of Award passed in Title Suit No. 705 of 2007 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhabhua on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Total 2.37 acres land was allotted to the plaintiff which was self-acquired property of her deceased husband.

5. The defendant 1^st set threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit land so the necessity of the suit arose for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from causing any obstruction/hindrance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff.

6. On summon, defendant no. 4 appeared and filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the ground that the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise between the parties was set aside by the Permanent Lok Adalat itself on 04.11.2010 in Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 2008. Therefore, the plaintiff has no case on the basis of Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and also contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit.

7. Upon considering the averments made in the plaint, the learned trial court allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the plaint of the plaintiff/appellant as the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 2010 by the learned Munsif, Bhabhua, the plaintff/appellant has preferred Title Appeal No. 74 of 2011.

9. After considering the pleadings mentioned in the plaint, the learned appellate court affirmed the order of trial court by the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 74 of 2011 and held that since at the time of filing of the suit i.e. 08.01.2010, Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 2008 was already filed in the Permanent Lok Adalat for cancellation of the Award which was passed on the basis of compromise and the same was set aside on 04.11.2010, which was effective at the time of passing of order. Further, subsequent order dated 15.03.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 04 of 2011 by the Permanent Lok Adalat was not in existence at the time of order since the order for rejection of the plaint was passed on 27.09.2011. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order of trial court was affirmed.

10. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate that in case of rival claims of the right, title and possession, when the plaintiff asserts it and the defendants deny it, the only legal course would be to enter into evidence and then on the basis of pleadings and evidence, issues could be decided but not on the basis of petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Learned senior counsel further submitted that for consider