ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat, Muzaffarpur in Pre-litigative Case No. 291 of 2007 disposing of the same in terms of compromise petition forming part of the award without taking cognizance the pendency of Title Suit No.180 of 1999 as the same was not brought by parties to Lok Adalat proceeding. 3. In the present case the petitioners have claimed that a partition suit bearing Title Suit No.180 of 1999 is pending in the court of the Munsif, West Muzaffarpur seeking the following reliefs:- (A) That upon the consideration of the facts of the case the court be pleased to pass a preliminary decree for 2.8 share of the plaintiff out of Schedule I and Schedule II property of the plaint. (B) That after passing of preliminary decree the court be further pleased to appoint a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner for carving out a separate patty for 2.8. share of the plaintiff out of schedule I and Schedule II property of the plaint respectively and possession be delivered to the plaintiff over the patti so carved out. (C) that a decree for cost be awarded to the defendants. (D) That a decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be deemed entitled be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case is at advance stage. A pre-litigative case vide P.L. Case No.291 of 2007 was filed in the permanent Lok Adalat making following reliefs: (A) On adjudication of the aforesaid facts stated above, the court be pleased to declare, decide title, right and possession over the Schedule-I land as mentioned in the petition and to confirm oral gift delivered by the opposite party in this favour so that the land may be mutated in his name. (B) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner be found entitled may be passed in his favour and against the opposite party. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the title suit there are altogether one plaintiff and three defendants where as in the Lok Adalat very cunningly pre-litigative case was filed with compromise in which the plaintiff and opposite party Most. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the title suit there are altogether one plaintiff and three defendants where as in the Lok Adalat very cunningly pre-litigative case was filed with compromise in which the plaintiff and opposite party Most. Mahjidan Khatoon defendant II set of Title Suit No.180 of 1999 is a party. The plaintiff has purposely did not make defendant nos. 1 and 2 Ist as party to the Lok Adalat application. It has been further submitted that there is no averment in the Lok Adalat application about pendency of the Title Suit No. 180 of 1999. He has further submitted that Most Mahjidan Khatoon is a Parda Nashin lady and she put her thumb impression in ignorance and on that basis the petitioners have obtained the award. He further submits that if there would have been good intention or there has been real compromise, then opposite party could have filed an application of compromise in the partition suit itself or could have filed an application making a prayer for transfer the case to the Lok Adalat but instead a noval method has been adopted and filed a pre-litigative case suppressing material facts from the court. The reliefs prayed for in the partition suit is the same as that of Lok Adalat and as such the whole case is based on purported compromise and which is completely a nullity. It has been further submitted that parties have not entered into compromise. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has disputed this argument and submits that there is no dispute that this compromise petition bears the thumb impression of Most. Mahjidan Khatoon and has further stated that if petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had any grievance they could have filed an application before the lok Adalat itself. 7. This Court has to examine whether the order/award of Lok Adalat is sustainable in the eye of law. Admittedly Title Suit No. 188 of 1999 is pending before the trial court and there is no dispute that the case is at advance stage and if the parties have entered into compromise either they could have filed a compromise petition in title suit or could have made a joint prayer for transferring the case to the Lok Adalat. Admittedly Title Suit No. 188 of 1999 is pending before the trial court and there is no dispute that the case is at advance stage and if the parties have entered into compromise either they could have filed a compromise petition in title suit or could have made a joint prayer for transferring the case to the Lok Adalat. It can not conceivable thought that when the suit is at the advance stage the parties in litigation would file compromise petition without disclosing the pendency of suit in civil court and without bringing all parties to suit in Lok Adalat proceeding. 8. In this view of the matter, I find that the order of the Lok Adalat is not sustainable as the parties are still in litigation and petitioner-respondent obtained award by suppressing fact and without bringing necessary party on record to the case and as such the award is nullity. Accordingly the award passed by Lok Adalat, Muzaffarpur in Pre-Litigative Case No. 291 of 2007 is quashed. 9. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed.