SURYAKANT NAIDU Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Facts in brief required for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are that Civil Suit No.61A/11 filed before the Civil Judge Class -II Khatgora, District Korba (CG) by respondents 1 & 2 against respondent No.3 for declaration that they are the adopted sons of present respondent No.3. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 held that since the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the adopted sons of defendant, hence, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Against the said judgment and decree, both the plaintiffs preferred appeal from the original decree under the provision of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code;). The appellate Court for the reasons best known to the presiding officer, registered the said appeal filed under the provision of Section 96 of the code as Misc. Civil Appeal and registered the same as Misc. Civil Appeal No.09/12. The said appeal was disposed of in a hearing of Lok Adalat constituted under the law on 20.01.2013 wherein the aforementioned appellants and the respondent had filed a joint application for compromise. The said Lok Adalat accepted the said joint compromise application and disposed of the matter finally under Section 21 of the Legal Services Act 1987 and declared the appellants as adopted sons of respondent. The present petitioner, who is the real brother of present respondent No.3 though not a party before for the trial Court and the appellate Court, had filed the instant petition invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the superintendence over the Courts below and in brief had taken the plea that while passing impugned order dated 20.01.2013 the Lok Adalat has committed error of law by violating Sections 9 & 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. Since present respondent No.3 is the real younger brother of the present petitionere, the element of division of ancestral property is also involved hence, it is prayed on behalf of the petitioner that by invoking the authority under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order passed by Lok Adalat may be quashed.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents i.e. parties before the Court below, written response has been filed jointly wherein it is submitted that the petitioner is not a party in the said litigation either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court, he has no locus to file the petition and the award passed by the Lok Adalat is final, binding to the parties, hence, the petition may be dismissed.