IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3726 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 12, 2011. Sunil Gandhi and others ...........Petitioners Versus Sidh Pith Sri Hanuman Mandir Sri Sanathan Dharam Mandir Dal and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanwalvir Singh Kang,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. (Oral) Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 07.03.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which appeal filed by respondent No.2 against award dated 25.04.2009, passed by Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Faridabad was accepted by setting aside the award dated 25.04.2009 and the case was ordered to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision. Civil Revision No.3726 of 2011(O&M) -2- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs that the suit was compromised with respondent No.1-defendant against whom the present suit was filed by the present petitioners and that in view of the compromise (Annexure P-2), the matter was referred to Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement as per law by learned trial Court vide order dated 25.04.2009 (Annexure P-1). It has been further contended that the award (Annexure P-3) was passed by Samjhauta Sadan i.e. Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Faridabad, vide which the suit was decided in view of compromise, Annexure C-1, and the compromise was ordered to be made as part of the award of the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat. It is further contended that the appeal was filed against the said award passed by Samjhauta Sadan by present respondent No.2 who was not even a party to the litigation. It is further contended that the appeal was not decided on merits by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad and that, however, the same was allowed merely on the ground that the impugned award passed by Samjhauta Sadan is a nullity as the same was passed by Permanent Lok Adalat constituted for Public Utility Services under Chapter VI A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). Further contended that in fact the matter was decided by the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat i.e. Samjhauta Sadan and that there was no Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services established in District Faridabad even till Civil Revision No.3726 of 2011(O&M) -3- today and hence it is contended that the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same may be set aside and the case be remanded to Additional District Judge, Faridabad for deciding the appeal on merit. He has also placed on record original letter dated 28.07.2011 received by petitioner from the State Public Information Officer, Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh showing that there is no Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services functioning in District Faridabad, which is taken on record. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the order, Annexure P-1, passed by learned trial Court refers only to Permanent Lok Adalat and that the same does not refer to Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat. However, in view of the fact that no Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services was functioning in District Courts, Faridabad at the time when this order was passed, the only inference which can be drawn is that the matter was referred for decision to Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat i.e. Samjhauta Sadan. Moreover, as the matter is not covered under the Public Utility Services as defined under Chapter VI A of the Act, it could not have been sent to the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services and hence it was so observed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. However, though the matter was decided by the Samjhauta Sadan / Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad has observed that the matter was decided by Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services without any basis. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not been able to Civil Revision No.3726 of 2011(O&M) -4- show to this Court any document to support this contention that Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services was also functioning in District Courts, Faridabad when order, Annexure P-1, was passed by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of these facts, the impugned order dated 07.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad is directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad is directed to expedite the decision of this appeal on merit by giving short adjournments and efforts be made to decide the same within three months from the next date of hearing. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad on 07.11.2011. Disposed of accordingly. (RAM CHAND GUPTA) October 12, 2011 JUDGE Gagan