BANITA ROUT Vs. NABAGHANA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients are the married daughters, deliberately left out from a purported compromise petition filed in the proceeding between the other co-sharers, who had instituted the proceeding behind back of his clients, in the Continuous and Permanent Lok Adalat (CPLA). He submits, there be direction upon the CPLA to add his clients as parties and thereupon facilitate settlement.

(2.) Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 1, 3, 10, 11, 12 and 14 and submits, the case was filed as a pre-litigation case under Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat with Conciliation and Counseling Centre Scheme, 2000. He points out from impugned order dtd. 14/7/2006 that the case was registered and numbered as PL Case no.23 of 2006. PL, for pre-litigation. He submits, clause-3 of the scheme says, in event of settlement and disposal, it shall amount to a decree in accordance with provisions in sec. 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Parties to the PL case had duly arrived at a settlement and impugned order was made recording the disposal, thereby amounting to a deemed decree. In any event petitioners have moved Court on gross delay. There can be no interference.

(3.) On query from Court Mr. Nayak submits, the scheme operates in its field on facilitating conciliation, settlement and disposal. He reiterates, on disposal the order is deemed to be a decree. In the circumstances, the scheme does not confine jurisdiction of the CPLA to clause (b) under sec. 22A. Mr. Mohapatra in reply submits, subject matter of a partition suit is not covered under clause (b) in sec. 22A.