Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 15.4.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint. The application has been dismissed primarily on the ground that if the suit was filed on the date of seeking amendment then the same would be time barred. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat has taken a view that the revision petition is not maintainable on account of the amendment made with effect from 1.7.2002 in the Code. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 11.9.2002, the petitioner has moved the present application for recalling of that order because according to the learned counsel the Lok Adalat cannot adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in the absence of any compromise. 2. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be accepted partially. Under Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, (for brevity the Act) the Lok Adalat does not possess the power to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties unless there is compromise or settlement between the parties. It can only pass a consent decree by recording the consent of the parties. Section 20 of the Act reads as under;- "20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats (1) Where in any case referred to in Clause (i) Sub-section (5) of Section 19.- (i) (a) the parties thereof agree, or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or iii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat; Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination; Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under Sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under Sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under Sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in Sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a Court. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under Sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under Sub-section (1)." 3. The above produced provisions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which I am also a party. The Division Bench after considering the rival contentions recorded the following conclusion;- "6. We have given serious thought to the entire matter. The above produced provisions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which I am also a party. The Division Bench after considering the rival contentions recorded the following conclusion;- "6. We have given serious thought to the entire matter. There cannot be any doubt that Lok Adalat which were being organised before the enforcement of the 1987 Act had done great service to the society by getting the dispute and cases decided through the mechanism of compromise and settlement. The Lok Adalats organised under the auspices of Legal Services Authorities and Committees constituted under the 1987 Act have also done commendable work. However, on the pretext of rendering yeomans service to the society, Lok Adalals cannot assume the role of regular Court and decide cases de hors compromise or settlement. The system of administration of justice envisaged under our Constitution consists of hierarchy of courts etc. Supreme Court of India, High Court and Subordinate Courts. The Supreme Court exercises original, exclusive, appellate and special jurisdiction to decide various types of cases. Likewise, the High Courts exercise original, appellate and revisional jurisdiction for adjudicating different types of cases. At the grassroot level, this High jurisdiction vests in the Sub ordinate Courts. Article 39-A which finds place in Chapter IV of the Constitution, enjoins upon the State to ensure that operations of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and also provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or scheme or otherwise so that opportunity of seeking justice is not denied by reason of economic or other disability. It was under this Article that the State had constituted Legal Aid Boards/Authorities for spreading legal education among masses and organise Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes by agreement or compromise. In order to confer statutory status upon these bodies, the Parliament enacted the 1987 Act, Chapter VI thereof, which deals with Lok Adalats consist of four sections. Section 19 is the first section in this chapter. Sub-section (1) thereof empowers the State Authorities or District Authorities or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or High Legal Service Committee to organise Lok Adalats. Section 19 is the first section in this chapter. Sub-section (1) thereof empowers the State Authorities or District Authorities or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or High Legal Service Committee to organise Lok Adalats. It declares that a Lok Adalat shall have the jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of - (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised, proviso to this sub-section declares that the Lok Adalat have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. Section 20(1)(2) provides for reference of the case to the Lok Adalat on the agreement of the parties or otherwise. Section 20(3) laid down that where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under Sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under Sub-section (2) the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. Section 20(5) provides that where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court from where reference has been received under Sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. Section 21(1) declares that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court or where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, the Court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 21(2) confers finality on the award made by the Lok Adalat and lays down that no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. Section 21(2) confers finality on the award made by the Lok Adalat and lays down that no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. Section 22(1) lays down that the Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under the 1987 At, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the matter enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e). Section 22(2) lays down that apart from the power vested in it under Sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. 7. The above survey of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the 1987 Act shows that the jurisdiction and power to decide cases by adjudicating upon the issues of fact and law exclusively vest in the regular courts. Lok Adalats play an important complementary role by assisting the Courts in expeditious disposal of cases by way of compromise or settlement. However, they cannot assume the role of regular Courts and decide the cases de hors compromise and settlement. The powers conferred upon Lok Adalat under Section 22 of the 1987 Act are meant for achieving the main object of disposing of the cases by way of compromise or settlement, but the same cannot be used for deciding the cases in which the parties have failed to arrive at a settlement or compromise." 4. The other argument on merit has to be rejected because this petition in not maintainable. If the impugned order is set aside it would not result into disposal of the suit. This interpretation to Section 115 of the Code has been given by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment i.e. Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C.W. 2445 and also by this Court in CR No. 2829 of 2002 Bikramjit Singh v. Ramesh Kumar and Ors., decided on 5.8.02, The argument that the revision petition was filed in 1996 would also not help the plaintiff-petitioner because all procedural laws are retrospective. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the plaintiff-petitioner shall be at liberty to avail all legal remedies. C.M. stands disposed of.