PUSHPA SURESH BHUTADA Vs. SUBHASH BANSILAL MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is obviously made on the basis of instructions of respondent No. 2 who is personally present in Court.

(2.) ON the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were told that, even if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute, this Court would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat so that an independent Forum which is manned by experienced men (including retired Judges of the High Court) would make an attempt to persuade the parties, nay educate them to accept some workable arrangement which would be in the interest of all concerned including expeditious disposal of their dispute at lesser costs. To this suggestion, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondents submits that, unless there is a possibility of settlement the Court cannot refer the matter to the Lok Adalat nor the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of the case in view of the language of section 20 of the Act. It has therefore become imperative to answer this objection. Relevant extract of section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) as amended by Act 59 of 94 reads thus:

(3.) SINCE section 20 (1) makes reference to section 19 (5) (i) of the Act it would be apposite to advert to the provision as well, which reads thus: