JONI AND OTHERS Vs. ANOKHI RAM & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 2000 was instituted by the plaintiff, one Anokhi Ram against since deceased defendant Roshni Devi, wherein, he claimed a decree for foreclosure, of, mortgage AND for sale of the mortgaged property.

(2.) Subsequent thereto, plaintiff Anokhi Ram instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 34, Rules 3,4 and 5 of the CPC, for a final decree being pronounced upon Civil Suit bearing No. 110/1 of 2000. The defendants/JDs instituted reply thereto. However, during, the pendency of the aforesaid application, before the learned trial Court, defendant Nos.1(i) and (ii), were, under a verdict recorded on 30.10.2012, hence ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The aforesaid order was not concerted, to be set aside, by appropriate motion(s) being made therebefore by the aforesaid defendants. On 23.03.2013, the learned trial Court, made, an order, for, reference of the apposite application vis-a-vis the Megha Lok Adalat. Persual of the order sheet, of, 23.03.2013, whereat the impugned rendition, was, recorded by the Chairman of the Mega Lok Adalat, without its thereon holding signature(s) of member(s) thereof, (i) reveals that on the relevant date, defendants No. 1(i) and 1(ii), without, theirs being permitted to join the proceedings; (ii) also without theirs consenting, to a reference, of, the lis engaging the parties at contest, being made by the learned trial Judge, vis-a-vis Mega Lok Adalat, (iii) the trial Judge, yet proceeding to pronounce the impugned rendition. Under the impugned rendition, the apposite application, cast before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Order 34, Rules 3, 4 and 5, was hence allowed. A perusal of the impugned rendition, discloses (iv) that a consent or an amicable settlement occurred only vis-avis defendant No.2 and the plaintiff/decree holder, (v) imminently no consent thereat was purveyed by defendants No. 1(i) and 1(ii)/JDs concerned vis-a-vis the Mega Lok Adalat, for the latter proceeding to record the impugned order.

(3.) The aforestated trite factum, of, the JDs concerned, being proceeded against ex-parte on 30.10.2012 also theirs upto 23.03.2013, not being permitted to join the proceedings, spurs grave legal implications. For fathoming the legality of the impugned pronouncement, an allusion is imperative vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 20, of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: