JUDGMENT : 1. All these appeals have been filed by the appellants – original plaintiffs under Section 96 of CPC, challenging the order dated 11.2.2017 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Dhangadhra in the Lok Adalat dismissing the suits on the ground that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said suits. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the First Appeal No. 2201 of 2017 are considered. 3. As per the case of the appellant – original plaintiff Electricity Company, the suit being No.231 of 2016 was filed in the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Dhangadhra for recovery of the amount of electricity bill issued to the opponent – original defendant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 read with the Regulation No. 7.6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code. It appears that the suit was directed to be placed in the Lok Adalat, in which the following order was passed on 11.2.2017 below Exh.1 of the said suit :- xxxx 4. The afore-stated order is under challenge before this Court by way of appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. The learned Advocate Mr. Asit Mehta, appearing for the respondent – original defendant raising the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the appeal has submitted that there was no decree drawn pursuant to the impugned order passed in Lok Adalat, and therefore, the appeal under Section 96 of CPC was not maintainable. He also relied upon the provisions contained in Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Authorities Act”) to contend that the order made by the Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties to the dispute and no appeal could lie in any case against such order. Mr. Mehta has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Vs. Ramesh D. Devnani, reported in 2005(1) GLH 298 to submit that there being no complaint filed by the appellant – plaintiff under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of the bill on the ground of theft of electric energy. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in case of Barot Vitthalbhai Damodardas Vs. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in case of Barot Vitthalbhai Damodardas Vs. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel and Anr., reported in (2009) 2 GLH 135 and the decision in case of Parimal Bhogilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 10(3) GLR 2514, as also in case of Bhagabat Sit Vs. Balaram Sit, reported in AIR 1963 Orissa 61. 6. Per contra, the learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the appellant, pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 21(1) of the Authorities Act, submitted that every order of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of Civil Court, and therefore, the appeal under Section 96 of CPC would be maintainable, more particularly when the impugned order has determined the jurisdiction of the Court, and not the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties in the Lok Adalat. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Torrent Power A.E.C. Limited Vs. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006(2) GLR 1580 to submit that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellant – plaintiff in respect of the electricity bill raised by the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act read with Regulation No.7.6.5 of the Electricity Code. 7. So far as the provisions with regard to the cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalat is concerned, Section 20 provides inter alia as under :- “20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of subsection (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 (ii) 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 subsection (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 subsection (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 subsection (1) or where a reference has been made to it under subsection (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 subsection (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 subsection (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under subsection (5) to the Court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage, which was reached before such reference under subsection (l).” 8. So far as the award made by the Lok Adalat is concerned, the relevant Section 21 reads as under:- “21. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under subsection (5) to the Court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage, which was reached before such reference under subsection (l).” 8. So far as the award made by the Lok Adalat is concerned, the relevant Section 21 reads as under:- “21. Award of Lok Adalat (1) 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 and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under subsection (1) of section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).] (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”. 9. From the bare reading of the afore-stated provisions, it clearly transpires that when any case is referred to the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) or when a reference is made to the Lok Adalat under Sub-section (2) of Section 20, Lok Adalat is required to proceed to dispose of the case or the matter, as the case may be, and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. 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 has to be returned by the Lok Adalat to the concerned Court from which the case was referred, or the Lok Adalat would advice the parties to seek remedy in a Court, as may be permissible. The Lok Adalat is not empowered to dispose of any case on merits where the compromise or settlement between the parties could not take place. None of the said provisions contemplates or authorises the Lok Adalat to decide as to whether the Court concerned had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. 10. The Lok Adalat is not empowered to dispose of any case on merits where the compromise or settlement between the parties could not take place. None of the said provisions contemplates or authorises the Lok Adalat to decide as to whether the Court concerned had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. 10. In the instant case, as transpiring from the impugned order, the concerned Judge in the special sitting of the Lok Adalat without recording any compromise or settlement between the parties, has dismissed the suit considering its merits by holding that the concerned Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is to be noted that the concerned Judge was not hearing the case in regular course, but was sitting as the Member of the Lok Adalat, inasmuch as it has been specifically stated in the impugned order that the suit is dismissed in the special sitting of Lok Adalat in presence of panel advocates and the officers of the PGVCR. Such an order is not only without jurisdiction, but is in utter disregard of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Authorities Act. 11. It may be further noted that an award made in the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree as contemplated in Section 21(1) of the Authorities Act. An award in Lok Adalat could be made recording the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties. As stated earlier, in the instant cases, the awards have not been made recording any compromise or settlement, but have been made deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the concerned Court, which awards would be absolutely outside the purview of the Lok Adalat. The finality is attached to the awards which are made in Lok Adalats as contemplated in Section 21(2), and not to the awards made without any authority of law. The impugned awards being illegal and dehors the provisions of the Authorities Act, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 12. The decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent are in respect of the interpretation of the Section 135 of the Electricity Act, as to whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the recovery of the bills issued by the Electricity Company under the provisions contained in Electricity Act. 12. The decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent are in respect of the interpretation of the Section 135 of the Electricity Act, as to whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the recovery of the bills issued by the Electricity Company under the provisions contained in Electricity Act. At this juncture, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the suits, and therefore, the said decisions are not dealt with. Suffice is to say that since the impugned awards/decrees passed by the Lok Adalat are without any authority of law and nullity are hereby set aside. 13. In that view of the matter, the impugned awards passed by the Lok Adalat are set aside. All the cases are remanded to the respective trial Courts for deciding them on merits and in accordance with law. 14. All the appeals stand allowed accordingly.