A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE questions which have arisen this petition are- ( 2 ) IS the consent decree passed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties at Lok Adalat anyway different and distinct from other consent decrees ? On what grounds such a consent decree i. e. a decree based on compromise arrived at between the parties at Lok Adalat can be challenged ? ( 3 ) THE petition is directed against an order dated December 20 1982 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (JD.) Valsad refusing to set aside a decree passed by the Court on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties at Lok Adalat held on December 12 1982 at Valsad. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 275 of 1978 against respondent No. 1 tenant for recovery of possession of the suit premises inter alia on the grounds of (1) bonafide personal requirement; (2) arrears of rent; (3) alleged change of user of the premises; and (4) alleged acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation. The suit premises consisted of two rooms and open land and the rent was Rs. 15/- per month. The defendant appeared in the suit and resisted the same on various grounds inter alia contending that the was a second attempt on the part of the plaintiff to get the vacant possession of the premises. It was pointed out by the defendant that earlier a suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being Regular Civil Suit No. 96 of 1968 on almost the same grounds. Having failed in getting the vacant possession of the premises the petitioner-plaintiff had made another attempt on the alleged ground that now he was about to retire from service and therefore he re-required the suit premises. It was pointed out by the defendant that a son of the plaintiff has been employed in the Railway and the quarter occupied by the plaintiff was allotted to him and therefore the plaintiff was not to be evicted from the same. Moreover it was pointed out that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for personal bonafide use as alleged. According to the defendant the plaintiff had in his occupation two officer premises situated at Valsad. Moreover it was pointed out that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for personal bonafide use as alleged. According to the defendant the plaintiff had in his occupation two officer premises situated at Valsad. It was also stated by the defendant that either of the premises was sufficient to accommodate the petitioner and his family members. The defendant also pointed out that there were 14 persons in his family. Alleged alternative accommodation was at Kosamba and that was neither sufficient nor suitable. The defendant also stated that in the front room of the suit premises he was doing his tailoring work and one of his sons was assisting in the same work. ( 5 ) THE suit was filed on September 18 1978 The respondent-defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement on January 15 1979 Issues were raised by the Court on March 23 1984 Thereafter parties produced documentary evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was recorded and the evidence of the defendant WAs being recorded. At this point of time a Lok Adalat was held at Valsad on December 12 1982 By consent of the parties the case filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was placed before Lok Adalat The plaintiff who usually resided at Bombay came to attend the Lok Adalat of his own volition. He attended the Lok Adalat and on that day he arrived at a compromise with the defendant The compromise was to the effect that the defendant should hand over possession a part of the open land admeasuring 30 x 6 in area and should pay the rent of Rs. 30/- per month for the premises remaining in his possession instead of Rs. 15/- per month. Thus as per the consent terms the plaintiff was to get two things (I) possession of the open laud admeasing 30 x 6 in area which was occupied by the defendant-tenant; and (II) Rs. 15/- more per month as and by way of rent even for the truncated area of the property leased to the defdant. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid compromise pursis was submitted before the Presiding Officer of the Court on the same day. The Court passed the order below the same to the effect that the parties were present. They produced the compromise. The compromise was read over and explained to the parties and they admitted the same to be correct. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid compromise pursis was submitted before the Presiding Officer of the Court on the same day. The Court passed the order below the same to the effect that the parties were present. They produced the compromise. The compromise was read over and explained to the parties and they admitted the same to be correct. Therefore the compromise was ordered to be admitted and hence it was ordered that the decree be passed in terms of the compromise. Thereafter on the same day a decree in terms of the compromise has been drawn by the Court. The compromise terms are at Annexure A and the decree drawn by the Court is at Annexure B. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff filed an application before the lower Court on December 13 1982 alleging that the signature on the compromise terms was taken from him without reading over the writing therein. That the next day morning he entertained suspicion and therefore he went to the Court and read the writing. To his surprise he came to now that the writing was not as per his understanding. At the time of this writing his advocate was not present and the defendant had perpetrated fraud upon him. Therefore he prayed that the decree be not passed and his suit be proceeded further from the stage where it was. Below this application the Court passed the impugned order on December 20 1982 to the effect that the suit was disposed of and decree was also drawn on the basis of the compromise. Therefore the Court had become functus officio and could not do anything further. The trial court passed an order to file the application and also observed that the petitioner-plaintiff can prefer an appeal and can seek the redress from the appellate court if he is so advised. It is against the aforesaid order that this petition is filed. ( 8 ) IN the petiton the allegation made is that advocate appearng in Lok Adalat insisted to compromise the suit and that fraud was practised upon him. The averments made in the petition have been controverted by the respondent-defendant who has filed the affidavit-in-reply sworn on June 15 1983 The respondent-defendant has stated that the petitioner had come from Bombay to attend Lok Adalat. The averments made in the petition have been controverted by the respondent-defendant who has filed the affidavit-in-reply sworn on June 15 1983 The respondent-defendant has stated that the petitioner had come from Bombay to attend Lok Adalat. That in the first session there was discussion with regard to the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties. The parties were persuaded to settle the dispute. Suggestions were made at the Lok Adalat and a possible solution of the dispute between the parties was also indicated. That after the recess in the second session the petitioner-plaintiff himself had gone to the respondent defendant and had expressed his readiness and willingness to enter into compromise. The respondent-defendant has denied the allegations of fraud made by the petitioner. ( 9 ) AN attempt was made to suggest that since the compromise was arrived at between the parties during the course of Lok Adalat the same should not have been made the basis of the consent decree. This contention has its roots in the misconception about Lok Adalat and the functioning thereof. Lok Adalat when translated into English would literally mean peoples Court but in fact this is no court at all. The team of Lok Adalat workers consists of social workers experienced lawyers retired judges and sitting judges other than the Presiding Officer of the Court of the Region in which Lok Adalat is being held. They are disinterested people. They render service with no monetary considerations. Let us see how does a Lok Adalat function? the Lok Adalat commences its sitting at about 9 or 9. 30 a. m. and continues to work up to about 5. 30 or 6. 00 p. m. with a lunch break of about an hour from 1. 00 to 2. 00 p. m. The sittings are held in Rooms of Court House or other premises made available by the Presiding Officer of the Court. In each of the Lok Adalats a team of two or more of the judges of the Lok Adalat sits. The Lok Adalat is open to the members of the public. Generally a a large crowd of the members of the public collects in the Lok Adalat. In each of the Lok Adalats a team of two or more of the judges of the Lok Adalat sits. The Lok Adalat is open to the members of the public. Generally a a large crowd of the members of the public collects in the Lok Adalat. In the presence of the members of the public the cases are called out one by one and each matter is discussed with the respective parties and the judges of the Lok Adalat (we may call them the conciliators ) get at the heart of the problems and persuade the parties to resolve the disputes amicably. After listening to both the sides for some time they suggest a formula for a just settlement. By a little persuasion a compromise formula is Evolved by making a commonsense approach which aims at a practicable solution which puts an end to the dispute with little give and take on both the sides. Each team of conciliators of the Lok Adalat is assisted by a clerk made available to them by the Presiding Officer of the Court. The clerk prepares an agreement or settlement under the supervision and guidance of the Lok Adalat and the signature of the pubes is obtained thereon. In case it relates to a matter pending in the Court the agreement is presented to the Presiding Officer who satisfies himself that the compromise has been willingly arrived at and is legal and passes an order for recording the compromise. In case some formalities are necessary to be completed the agreement is produced before the Court on Monday or the next Court working day and an order in accordance with law is passed disposing of the matter (Lok Adalat published by the Gujarat State Legal Aid and Advice Board) ( 10 ) IT should become clear that in this Lok Adalats no decision is taken by the peoples Court i. e. Lok Adalat functionaries. The parties are explained the pros and cons. They are made to realise the ruinous course of lengthy and expensive litigation. The Presiding Officer of the Court as such comes in picture only at the final stage when the parties have settled their disputes and the settlement is produced before the Court It may be noted that the Presiding Officer of the Court does not participate in the process of conciliation which takes place at Lok Adalat. The Presiding Officer of the Court as such comes in picture only at the final stage when the parties have settled their disputes and the settlement is produced before the Court It may be noted that the Presiding Officer of the Court does not participate in the process of conciliation which takes place at Lok Adalat. Thus Lok Adalat makes it possible for the parties to come together. It also makes it possible for the parties to understand the hard facts about their relative merits of the case. It is nothing but a process of arriving at a settlement. The Lok Adalat does not do anything further than this. It brings parties together makes them realise the relative merits of their case. The experienced advocates social workers retired judges or sitting judges make them visualise the possible outcome of ruinous lengthy and expensive litigation. Solution and settlement is suggested. If they choose to settle their disputes well and good; otherwise the matters are left to be fought out in ordinary course of law courts. ( 11 ) BUT by and large the experience suggests that this novel experiment of settling the disputes through the instrumentality of Lok Adalats has found favour with the people. In this connection the following observations may be noted: started in March last year the Lok Adalat (Peoples Court is the brain-child of a former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court now in the Supreme Court Mr. Justice M. P. Thakkar. Initiated on an experimental bash it has proved so successful that more such Adalats were set up. In nine months the Lok Adalats settled nearly 4 0 civil matrimonial and criminal (compoundable offences) cases. (See An Experiment in Peoples Courts an article by Shahnaz Anklesaria in The Statesmen dated June 6 1983 ( 12 ) I am told at the Bar by the counsel for the respondent-defendant that probably this is the only case in which decree based on compromise arrived at Lok Adalat is challenged by one of the parties by filing a petition before the High Court. Be that as it may. Be that as it may. But once the scope of the functioning of Lok Adalats is understood properly it should become clear that the consent decree passed on the basis of the settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat is not in any way different than the consent decree passed by the Court based on compromise arrived at between the parties in any other manner. Then on what ground such consent degree can be assailed? The consent decree may be assailed on any ground which would invalidate an agreement between the parties. As provided under Section 96 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code a consent decree is not appealable. Therefore the learned Judge was obviously wrong when he held that the petitioner-plaintiff can prefer an appeal and can seek redress from the appellate court. As per the amended Civil Procedure Code even the provision with regard to an appeal against an order under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code recording or refusing to record an agreement compromise or satisfaction is also deleted. In the old Civil Procedure Code as per the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (m) against such order of recording or refusing to record compromise an appeal from order could be preferred. However in view of the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1976 this remedy is also now not available. Hence the consent decree passed by a court can be assailed on any ground which would invalidate an agreement between the parties. The consent decree is nothing but a contract between the parties with the added super-command of the court Therefore the consent decree passed by a court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties at Lok Adalat does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or illegality. Such a consent decree may be assailed only on the similar grounds and in the similar manner by which other consent decrees may be made subject to challenge. ( 13 ) IN this case the petitioner alleges that he was in a hurry to catch the train leaving for Bombay and at that time his signature was taken in the compromise. Probably the suggetion is that he was in hurry and therefore he could not read the contents of the pursis. This averment on the face of it appears to be incorrect. Probably the suggetion is that he was in hurry and therefore he could not read the contents of the pursis. This averment on the face of it appears to be incorrect. In his application before the trial court dated December 13 1982 the petitioner has stated that after about 5. 00 in the evening the compromise was signed and he suspected about the writing the morning of December 13 1982 and thereupon he enquired in the Court and thereafter he filed the application before the trial court. This means that in the evening of December 12 1982 he was at Valsad. In the morning of December 12 1982 also he was at Valsad. Moreover in this application he does not say that he was required to go to Bombay in the evening of December 12 1982 and that he was in hurry to catch the train. Therefore it is clear that this ground of his being busy to catch the train for going to Bombay is an after-thought and invented for the first time on March 9 1983 when the petition is appeared to have been drafted by a lawyer; of course under the instructions of the petitioner. Thus a little scrutiny of the ground advanced for making out a case of fraud makes it clear that the ground is nothing but an offspring of some ingenious brain may be that of the petitioner or that of some of his advisers. This ground is based on facts non-existing and hence the same can-not be believed. ( 14 ) IN this connection it may be noted that the petitioner is not an il-literate or a semi-literate person. He i an experienced man aged about 58. He was serving at Bombay in Railway as a clerk. He owns other properties also at Valsad. He had filed a suit in the year 1968 against the respondent - defendant and carried the matter to higher court also. Therefore it is clear that the petitioner not only knew the ways of the world but knew the ways of the court also. It is difficult to believe that he could have been deceived by any one at Lok Adalat or that he would have signed the compromise pursis without reading and understanding the same. Therefore it is clear that the petitioner not only knew the ways of the world but knew the ways of the court also. It is difficult to believe that he could have been deceived by any one at Lok Adalat or that he would have signed the compromise pursis without reading and understanding the same. ( 15 ) THE team of workers who participate in Lok Adalat consists of a couple of women lawyers women social workers social workers a number of socially aware members of the Bar with appropriate orientation and a number of retired judges and sitting judges other than the Presiding of Officers of the Court of that region informed with spirit of service and adept in bringing about reproachment between parties by appropriate guidance and persuasion. The cases are discussed in open. The atmosphere created is of a little give and take on both the sides. The pragmatic and common sense approach to the problem is adopted rather than formal and legalistic approach. In such atmosphere when disputes are resolved in the presence of number of people known to the parties and in presence of disinterested people who are informed with the spirit of service the chances of any person being deceived by the other side are minimised rather such chances are almost nil It may be that in an atmosphere of a court room which is almost alien or foreign to many litigant a litigant may be swayed away one way or the other and may agree to something which he would have never dreamt of. This is not likely to happen in an informal atmosphere prevailing in Lok Adalat. As stated hereinabove in the instant case the petitioner is a well experienced person who knows the ways of the world. In his case it is difficult to believe that even in a formal atmosphere of a court room he could have been deceived by any one. On the contrary in this case he stood to gain. Therefore on all these grounds the contention that he was defrauded cannot be accepted. ( 16 ) ANOTHER ground advanced for challenging the decree is that it has been paged by the Court without application of mind. The ground requires to be stated for the purpose of being rejected only. The compromise pursis is in Gujarati. It has been produced before the Court by both the sides. ( 16 ) ANOTHER ground advanced for challenging the decree is that it has been paged by the Court without application of mind. The ground requires to be stated for the purpose of being rejected only. The compromise pursis is in Gujarati. It has been produced before the Court by both the sides. Under the compromise the petitioner stood to gain in two ways. He got the possession of part of the premises viz. the open land admeasuring about 180 sq. A. (i. e. 30 x 6 ). He also got the increase in rent to the extent of 100 % for a truncated area of leased premises. The order passed by the Court clearly shows that the compromise was read over and it was explained to the parties. The parties admitted the same to be correct. There-after the Court has passed an order to draw the decree in terms of the compromise. Therefore the ground that the decree is passed without application of mind has also no basis whatsoever and requires to be rejected. ( 17 ) NO other contention is raised. ( 18 ) IN view of the above the petition deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to cost. Rule discharged. .