JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6743 of 2005 by which the order allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of Civil Procedure') by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has been set aside. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that a Title Suit No. 212 of 1994 was filed by the Respondent No. 1. The Appellant was Defendant No. 3 in that suit. The summons were issued to all the Defendants to appear on 27.9.1996. The Appellant did not enter appearance in the case, rather asked other Defendants who had already entered appearance, to look after his interest also. Subsequently as they did not take proper care of his interest, the order was passed to proceed ex-parte against him. 3. Appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order and the trial Court vide order dated 15.9.1997 recalled the order, thus set aside the ex-parte order. The Appellant filed a written statement but did not pursue/contest the matter further and therefore, again he was set ex parte for the second time. The matter was listed for hearing ex parte on 25th June, 1999. Subsequent thereto the case was adjourned to several dates from time to time and finally on 30.07.1999 the Plaintiffs argument stood closed. Case was directed to be listed on 8.8.1999 for delivery of Judgment. The Judgment was delivered on the said date by the trial Court. On 6.8.2003, i.e. after expiry of four years, Appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte Judgment and decree. The said application was allowed vide order dated 4.5.2005. Being aggrieved, the said order was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 by filing W.P.(C) No. 6743 of 2005 which has been allowed vide Judgment and order dated 6.3.2007. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri R.C. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Appellant. The said application was allowed vide order dated 4.5.2005. Being aggrieved, the said order was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 by filing W.P.(C) No. 6743 of 2005 which has been allowed vide Judgment and order dated 6.3.2007. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri R.C. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Appellant. He has canvassed before us that as the Judgment was pronounced by the trial Court in Lok Adalat on 8.8.1999, it had rightly been set aside vide order dated 4.5.2005, and therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the same. As the order dated 4.5.2005 was revisable before the District Judge, therefore, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. Hence the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be reversed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as the Lok Adalat was not competent to decide the case as the parties did not enter into a compromise, it stood vitiated. So far as the legal proposition that Lok Adalat can decide the case only if the compromise is reached between the parties stands fully fortified by the Judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Phulan Rani and Another, ; and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others. In the said cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 89 and the provisions of Sections 19 to 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and held that the function of the Lok Adalat relate purely to conciliation and its order must be based on compromise or settlement between the parties. The Lok Adalat cannot enter into an adversarial adjudication akin to a Court of law. Any award of the Lok Adalat not based on a compromise or settlement between the parties would be void. But the question remains as to whether the instant case was decided by Lok Adalat. 6. Undoubtedly the matter has never been transferred to the Lok Adalat. The matter had been heard earlier. So far as the Appellant is concerned there had been twice orders to proceed ex parte against him. No attempt was made by the Appellant to pursue the case before the trial Court diligently. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after expiry of four years. The matter had been heard earlier. So far as the Appellant is concerned there had been twice orders to proceed ex parte against him. No attempt was made by the Appellant to pursue the case before the trial Court diligently. He filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after expiry of four years. It is evident from the record that matter had been heard for time and again and after conclusion of the arguments of the Plaintiff the matter was listed for delivery of Judgment on 8.8.1999. On that date Lok Adalat was also held. The Judgment was pronounced. The Appellant has made an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill that Judgment had been pronounced in the Lok Adalat and thus stood vitiated. In fact the Judgment was reserved and was to be delivered, as per order sheet, on 8.8.1999. In case the Lok Adalat had been held on that date and the Judgment has been pronounced therein, it would not become the Judgment of the Lok Adalat. On this issue the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference at all. It is nobody's case that 8.8.1999 was a holiday or delivery of Judgment suffered from any lacuna in law. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is not in a position to argue as to how the Judgment had been pronounced in violation of the mandate of statutory provisions, i.e., Order 20, Code of Civil Procedure. The Judgment had been pronounced in the open Court. The case had been heard by the same Judge who delivered the Judgment. The parties had notice of the date of Judgment. As the Appellant had been proceeded ex parte, the question of giving any notice to him could not arise. The Judgment was duly signed by the trial Court Judge. Therefore, it was in consonance with the statutory requirement. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Sarangi learned Counsel for the Appellant that against the order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, the writ petition was not maintainable as the revision could have been filed before the District Judge u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Admittedly, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was not raised before the learned Single Judge. 9. Admittedly, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was not raised before the learned Single Judge. It is settled proposition of law that a pure question of law, which does not require any investigation of fact, can be raised first time in writ jurisdiction. An issue which requires investigation of facts, cannot be allowed to be agitated. (Vide Keshab Lal v. Lal Bhai AIR 1956 SC 512; A.M. Allison Vs. B.L. Sen, ; A.S.T. Arunachalam Pillai Vs. Southern Roadways (Private) Ltd., ; The Cantonment Board, Ambala Vs. Pyarelal, ; Gurucharan Singh Vs. Kamla Singh and Others, ; State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc., ; Bhanwar Lal Vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim through N.K. Mohd. Mustafa, ; Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, ; Rajeswari Amma and another Vs. Joseph and another Commissioner of Income Tax v. U.P. Forest Corporation AIR 1998 SC 7 725; P.R. Deshpande Vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, ; State of Punjab and Others Vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and Another, ; Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. M.C. Clelland Engineers S.A., ; Rajasthan Agricultural University Vs. Ram Krishna Vyas, ; Warner Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, ; M/s. Atlas Export Industries Vs. M/s. Kotak and Company, ; and Ram Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Thawar Das (Dead) Through Lrs., ; State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Bhaterdevi Ramnivas Sanwalram, ; Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, ; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, ; Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., ). 10. In Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a plea, for which no factual foundation has been laid before the trial Court or tribunal, cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. In Vasantha Viswanathan and Ors. v. V.K. Eiayalwar and Ors. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., ). 10. In Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a plea, for which no factual foundation has been laid before the trial Court or tribunal, cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. In Vasantha Viswanathan and Ors. v. V.K. Eiayalwar and Ors. 2007 8 SCC 133, while dealing with an issue under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where the question arose as to whether the Plaintiff had been trafficking in permits and the said issue had not been raised in the Court/Tribunal below, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if as there had been no pleadings before the authority below, nor any evidence was laid before the said authority, it was not possible to allow the parties to raise such a plea first time before the Writ Court. 11. In Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and ors. (2001) 8 SCC 748 while dealing with an issue under the same Act, i.e., Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea as not permissible to be entertained as it had not been raised in the Court below. In A.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case wherein a writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner and it was disposed of giving directions to the authority to decide the case in accordance with law. When subsequent writ petition was filed as the Petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Statutory Authority certain new grounds had been taken. The Court held that if an issue had not been raised in the earlier writ petition nor it had been raised before the statutory authority, Petitioner could not be permitted to raise such a plea in the subsequent petition. Therefore, law is clear in the issue that if no determination of factual controversy is involved, a legal issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. It is also permissible to raise the legal plea even at the Appellate stage. 12. There may be some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the order setting aside the ex parte Judgment and decree under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC may be revisable. It is also permissible to raise the legal plea even at the Appellate stage. 12. There may be some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the order setting aside the ex parte Judgment and decree under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC may be revisable. But, learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly conceded that it is self-imposed restriction on the Court not to entertain writ petition generally where statutory remedy has not been exhausted in such cases. But it is not his case that the writ Court has no competence or lacks jurisdiction to deal with such cases. 13. It is well settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. (Vide Dal Singh v. King Emperor of India AIR 1917 PC 25 ; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, ; Mohammad Swalleh and Others Vs. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut and Another, : and Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid.(S) Vs. Phundan Singh and Others, ). 14. In view of the above discussion, we reach the following conclusions: (i) The trial Court passed the order twice to proceed against the Appellant ex parte; (ii) Appellant filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after expiry of four years; (iii) Appellant did not prosecute his case diligently; (iv) Judgment and order was not of the Lok Adalat as the case had never been referred to Lok Adalat. (v) The case was heard by the Court, arguments of the Plaintiff were concluded and 8.8.1999 was fixed for delivery of Judgment; (vi) Parties present who had not been proceeded ex parte had notice that the Judgment will be delivered on 8.8.1999. (vii) Judgment was delivered on the said date by the learned Judge who heard the case. (viii) Judgment was pronounced in the open Court and signed by the learned Judge there. (ix) No fault can be found with the delivery of the Judgment as it was in consonance with the statutory requirement of the provisions of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (x) If the Judgment was delivered on the date Lok Adalat was held, it could not be said to be the Judgment of the Lok Adalat. (ix) No fault can be found with the delivery of the Judgment as it was in consonance with the statutory requirement of the provisions of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (x) If the Judgment was delivered on the date Lok Adalat was held, it could not be said to be the Judgment of the Lok Adalat. (xi) The writ Court may not generally entertain the petition where the party has not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal or revision but it cannot be held that the writ Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition. (xii) Parties cannot be permitted to take the benefit of technicalities particularly when the case is not fit for granting equitable relief. 16. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge as it is a well discussed and reasoned one. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 17. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed