ORDER Though served, the respondent has not entered appearance. Re. Interlocutory Application No. 6359 of 2012. Delay of 12 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1516 of 2012. 2. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) against the order dated 9th July 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 8060 of 2012. 3. The respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC no. 8060 of 2012 for a relief against the appellant-Board that pursuant to the order made in a Lok Adalat, the Matriculation certificate issued by the Board in 1999 be modified. The name of the writ petitioner “Vivek Ranjan Mishra, S/o Rajwakil Mishra” be altered as “Vivek Ranjan Mishra, S/o Sudhakar Mishra”. According to the writ petitioner, his father’s name was Sudhakar Mishra but by mistake name of Rajwakil Mishra was entered in the Matriculation certificate. The petition was contested by the Board. According to the Board, the Matriculation certificate contained the details and particulars of the writ petitioner as had been recorded in the examination form. 4. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition on the premise that unless the name of his father is changed or modified as requested the succession will change. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. The Writ Petition is nothing but the ingenuity of the writ petitioner. All throughout the record and, as mentioned in the Appeal Memo, the name of Rajwakil Mishra was entered in the school register as the father of the writ petitioner. In the admission form also, the petitioner had mentioned “Rajwakil Mishra” as his father. Years thereafter, the petitioner has made an attempt to change the name of his father from “Rajwakil Mishra” to “Sudhakar Mishra” with an intention to avail of the benefit of compassionate employment on the death of the aforesaid Sudhakar Mishra, a government servant, who died in harness. 6. It is apparent that the claim made by the writ petitioner is not only false but it has been made with mala fide intention. Such a petition could not have been entertained by any stretch of imagination. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is allowed. 6. It is apparent that the claim made by the writ petitioner is not only false but it has been made with mala fide intention. Such a petition could not have been entertained by any stretch of imagination. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th July 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 8060 of 2012 is set aside. CWJC no. 8060 of 2012 is dismissed. 8. Interlocutory Application No. 6360 of 2012 stands disposed of. 9. We have our own doubts about the genuineness of the purported order of the Lok Adalat (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) produced by the writ petitioner. The order does not indicate the name of the Court before which the settlement was recorded. The said order though was purportedly made as early as on 23rd February 2008, the same has not been referred to in the order dated 3rd March 2011 made by this Court (Coram: J.N. Singh, J.) in CWJC no. 7061 of 2008. 10. Presuming that the said order is genuine, we must hold that the same is not binding to the Board, as the Board was not a party to the said settlement. If it is genuine, we must issue caution to every Lok Adalat, not to entertain contentious issues in a Lok Adalat, particularly in pre-litigation matters.