( 1 ) THE appellant has filed a memo for referring the matter to the Lok adalat. The learned Counsel for appellant submitted that this is a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for respondents 2 (a) to 2 (c), submitted that unless all parties agreed, the appeal cannot be referred to Lok Adalat. He relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in basappa and Another v Shobha and Others, in particular, the following observations:"none of the parties had filed any application before the Court for referring the matter for settlement before the Lok Adalat. There is also no indication in the order sheet that the learned counsel representing the parties had made any request before the learned Judge for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. . . . A perusal of the order sheet gives an impression that the learned judge had taken the responsibility of getting the matter settled by the parties without there being any request by either of the parties or their learned Counsels. In view of this factual position, in my opinion, the learned Trial Judge could not have referred the matter to the Lok Adalat unless the parties to the lis thereof agree for such reference. If a request is made by both the parties, then the Trial Court should have noticed the same in his order. In the absence of such note by the Trial Judge in his order, it cannot be presumed and assumed that the parties had agreed to for such reference of the matter for settlement before the Lok Adalat. . . As I have already stated, the provisions of the Act can be applied only when both the parties agree. . . ". (emphasis supplied) ( 3 ) WE have examined the said decision. It does not lay down any proposition as contended by the learned Counsels for respondents 2 (a) to 2 (c ). ( 4 ) SECTION 19 (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('act' for short) provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before it. Section 20 deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. ( 4 ) SECTION 19 (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ('act' for short) provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before it. Section 20 deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. It is evident from Section 20 (1) that a Court can refer a case before it to Lok Adalat in three circumstances:" (1) Where all the parties to the case agree for referring the case to Lok Adalat - vide clause (i) (a ). (2) Where only one of the parties makes an application to the court seeking reference of the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement - vide clause (i) (b ). (3) Where the Court is satisfied (suo motu) that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat - vide clause (ii)". 4. 1 Where all parties agree for referring the case to Lok Adalat, the question of either the Court hearing the parties or the Court recording satisfaction that the case is a fit one for reference to Lok Adalat does not arise. The Court will have to however record the agreement of all the parties to refer the case to Lok Adalat. 4. 2 Where only one or only a few among several parties seek reference to Lok Adalat, then the Court will have to give a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard on the question whether the case should be referred to Lok Adalat. After such hearing, if the Court feels that it is a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat, it may do so even if the other parties oppose the reference, after recording its prima facie satisfaction that there are chances of settlement in the Lok Adalat. 4. 3 Where neither party requests for reference to Lok Adalat, but the court feels that it is a fit case to be referred to Lok Adalat, it may do so suo motu, after giving a hearing to the parties, if it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat. 4. 4. 3 Where neither party requests for reference to Lok Adalat, but the court feels that it is a fit case to be referred to Lok Adalat, it may do so suo motu, after giving a hearing to the parties, if it is satisfied that the case is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat. 4. 4 When the statute lays down that a case can be referred in either of the three circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents 2 (a) to 2 (c) that the case cannot be referred unless all parties agree is liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) BASAPPA's case, supra, relied on by respondents 2 (a) to 2 (c), does not lay down any different proposition. In that case, the Trial Court had referred the matter to Lok Adalat without indicating whether the reference was under clause (i) (a) or (i) (b) or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 20. If it was a reference under clause (i) (a) of Section 20 (1), the trial Court ought to have recorded that the reference was on a joint request. If the reference was under clause (i) (b) or (ii) of Section 20 (1), the Court ought to have recorded a prima facie satisfaction that there was a chance of settlement or satisfaction that it was a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat. The Trial Court had referred the matter to Lok adalat without recording such satisfaction of the Court about the chances of settlement or satisfaction that the case was fit for reference to Lok Adalat. All that the learned Judge has observed is that there could not be such a reference without giving a hearing and without recording satisfaction, unless the parties to the lis agreed for such reference. We reiterate that a reference to Lok Adalat can either be by recording a joint request or by recording satisfaction as required under clause (i) (b) or (ii) of Section 20 (1); and when the Court does not record its satisfaction about the need for reference and when there is no joint request, there can be no reference. The observation of the learned Judge that the provision of the Act can be applied only when both parties agree, refers to settlement before the Lok Adalat. The observation of the learned Judge that the provision of the Act can be applied only when both parties agree, refers to settlement before the Lok Adalat. The said observation was necessitated as the Lok Adalat had treated a matter as having been settled even though the Counsel for one of the parties stated that his client was not agreeable to the settlement and made such an endorsement in the alleged settlement memo. Lok Adalat is not meant to coerce or browbeat parties to a settlement. Nor can there be a settlement before a Lok Adalat unless there is mutual agreement, as the function of the Lok Adalat is that of conciliators. The Lok Adalat cannot 'adjudicate' disputes and give any decision. ( 6 ) WE reiterate that a Court can suo motu or at the request of even one of the parties, refer the case to the Lok Adalat provided that it is done after giving a hearing to all parties and it is satisfied that there are chances of settlement or that the case is a fit one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, and records such satisfaction. In fact, we may say that Courts owe a duty to examine all cases to find out whether they are fit cases for reference to Lok Adalats. If 8 to 10 years old cases are pending in a Court and if cases which are 3 or 4 years old have no chance of being taken up for trial in the immediate near future, there is no reason why a conciliation should not be attempted in such cases, by reference to Lok Adalat. In fact, with the establishment of permanent lok Adalats, there is no reason why the Court should not, at the time of framing issues, apply its mind whether the case is a fit case for reference to Lok Adalat and if found fit, after giving a hearing to the parties refer it to Lok Adalat. The Bar and Bench owe a duty to identify the cases which deserve negotiated settlement and settle such cases. The Lok adalat movement under the Act will become a success only when all types of cases, and not only motor accident cases and petty cases, are settled by conciliation. The Bar and Bench owe a duty to identify the cases which deserve negotiated settlement and settle such cases. The Lok adalat movement under the Act will become a success only when all types of cases, and not only motor accident cases and petty cases, are settled by conciliation. ( 7 ) A litigation ending in a contested decision invariably leads to bitterness, hostility and enmity between the parties to the lis, as the losing party continues to nurture a grievance against the successful party. In a civilised society, parties are expected to accept the decisions of Court with grace, but in reality it seldom happens, particularly in suits relating to partition among family members, disputes between neighbours, disputes between partners and disputes between spouses. On the other hand, if there is a settlement by conciliation, there are no winners or losers, as the result is acceptable to all. It is said that decision on contest creates enemies and a decision on consent creates friends. Settlement of a good percentage of cases by a continuous process of conciliation through Lok Adalats, has other beneficial fallouts also. They are: (I) The pressure on Courts and legal practitioners on account of heavy pendency is eased with the result that the Court's Board comes to manageable limits and Courts can deal with contested cases, more effectively, thoroughly and expeditiously. (II) The cost of litigation is reduced considerably. Part of Court fee is refunded if the settlement is before trial. The expenses of a long litigation is avoided. There is enormous saving of time and energy for litigants and witnesses. (III) The average period of pendency of cases will come down drastically and it will be possible to have decisions in any litigation within a short and reasonable period. We have to remember that timely and effective dispute resolution is one of t he hallmarks of civilised democratic societies. It is necessary to prevent people from taking law into their own hands or relying on extra-le- ga 1 agencies for settlement of disputes. ( 8 ) LITIGANTS do not like litigation. Much less do they like expenditure of time, energy and money. They want quick and favourable results. A citizen comes into contact with Courts, when in difficulties or distress. As in the case of a patient entering an hospital for treatment, the contact with Courts is not in the happiest of circumstances. ( 8 ) LITIGANTS do not like litigation. Much less do they like expenditure of time, energy and money. They want quick and favourable results. A citizen comes into contact with Courts, when in difficulties or distress. As in the case of a patient entering an hospital for treatment, the contact with Courts is not in the happiest of circumstances. Courts function under procedural laws, which give as much importance to decision making process, as to the decision itself and are not therefore structured or equipped to render quick decisions. The procedural laws were made to ensure fair play and avoid judicial error. They were made when litigations were few and when absolute adherence to procedure ensuring fair and elaborate hearing, did not lead to delay in disposals. The procedural laws are full of appeals, revisions and reviews. They enable filing of innumerable interlocutory applications which often results in the main matter itself being lost sight of. Pendency of suits for longer periods give rise to more number of interlocutory applications; and more number of interlocutory applications increase the period of pendency. The circle, though not Vicious', is time consuming. ( 9 ) WITH the gradual growth in the number of laws and number of litigations, without proportionate increase in the number of Courts, a stage has reached where the Courts are choked with cases. Delay has now virtually become a part of the judicial process. It has became quite common for civil disputes, in particular litigations involving partitions, evictions, and specific performance to be fought for several decades, through a hierarchy of Courts. In commercial litigation, delay can destroy businesses. In family disputes, delay can destroy physical and mental health turning litigants into nervous wrecks. Long pendency leads to frustration and desperation. The delay, uncertainty about the final outcome, changes in laws during the pendency of the cases, and the expenditure of time, energy and money during the period of litigation, take their toll on the patience of litigants and erode the confidence in the rule of law and the justice delivery system. When memories of litigation tend to be unpleasant and harsh, there is a tendency on the part of the litigant to avoid approaching the Courts, for relief, but seek remedy outside the legal framework. When memories of litigation tend to be unpleasant and harsh, there is a tendency on the part of the litigant to avoid approaching the Courts, for relief, but seek remedy outside the legal framework. A landlord who wants possession from a tenant, knowing that litigation may take years, thinks of engaging the services of musclemen to evict the tenant. It is not uncommon for moneylenders, and even Banks, to entrust debt collection to dubious agencies, to coerce and persuade debtors, not always by lawful means, to recover the amount so due. Though well-aware that such methods are illegal, costly and risky, more and more persons are tempted to have recourse to illegal methods, thinking that results are likely to be swift, decisive and effective, without realising their pitfalls and the effect on orderly society. In this background, it became necessary to seriously consider the need to encourage alternative dispute resolution methods. One of the objects of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is to reduce litigation in Courts and at the same time give speedy and cost-effective justice, by means of conciliation. Encouraging litigants to sort out their disputes and differences by a lawful means, that is by conciliation, with proper legal assistance, achieves the twin objects of giving relief to litigants and in building a law abiding and orderly society. It also incidentally helps the Bar, as litigants will more and more rely on Advocates, for advice, legal documentation and dispute resolution. There is therefore a need for a constant effort on the part of the Bar and the bench to make litigation, to the extent possible, pleasant, comfortable, short and cheap. Be that as it may. ( 10 ) IN this case, we have heard the Counsels for the appellant and the respondents. We are satisfied that there are chances of settlement if the matter is referred to Lok Adalat. Hence, we refer the matter to the lok Adalat conducted by the High Court Legal Services Committee. The parties and their Counsels agree to appear without further notice before the Lok Adalat on 1-3-2002 at 4. 45 p. m. --- *** --- .