JUDGMENT : MIR DARA SHEKO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mondal representing the petitioners-claimants. Heard also Mr. Singh appearing for the opposite party No. 1- insurance company. Considering the nature of the proceeding and the very lis involved in the matter service of notice upon the rest opposite parties No. 2-6 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioners for consideration and disposal of the CO on merits. 2. Upon hearing and on the face of the materials on record if reveals that the petitioners had filed a claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Suri, Birbhum for accidental death of their predecessor impleading both the offending vehicles vis-à-vis the respective insurance companies, namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Future Generali Insurance Company Ltd. 3. During pendency of such Motor Accident Claim Case No. 17/2011 the case was referred to the Lok Adalat. The learned Judges of Lok Adalat, for the reasons best known to them, disposed of said claim case between the claimants and Future Generali India Insurance, Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 keeping the claim case alive against other offending motor vehicle and its insurer, namely Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and said claim case was accordingly directed to place before the regular tribunal by recording of such partial settlement. 4. As a consequence of such partial settlement in the Lok Adalat, though it is unknown apparently in the process of disposal before the Lok Adalat, the name of the concerned vehicle and said Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. was expunged before the tribunal. 5. Learned Tribunal by recording the impugned order in view of the above partial settlement curiously observed as follows: "Thus question of existence of claim against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited do not arise." Accordingly, pursuant to the prayer of the petitioners regarding handing over of the cheque by aforesaid Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. learned tribunal disposed of the case by recording the last sentence as follows: "Thus the instant case is fully disposed of." 6. As to the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Mondal submitted that since the matter was partially disposed of between the claimants and Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. learned tribunal disposed of the case by recording the last sentence as follows: "Thus the instant case is fully disposed of." 6. As to the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Mondal submitted that since the matter was partially disposed of between the claimants and Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. before the Lok Adalat and since against the order of the Lok Adalat no appeal lies and since learned Tribunal fully disposed of the case without adjudicating the claim as against the rest opposite parties to the claim case including Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., the impugned order is perverse and suffers; from illegality and hence interference of the High Court is required. 7. Mr. Mondal in support of his contention relied on the case of State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., the case decided by Three-Judge Bench, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 660 : (2008)2 WBLR (SC) 265 (paras. 11 and 12). 8. Mr. Mondal concluded submitting to set aside the impugned order by allowing the application so that the trial may be conducted by learned tribunal for settling the rest part of the claim as against other opposite parties and their insurer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 9. Mr. Singh, per contra, invited my attention and confined his arguments since learned Tribunal concluded the impugned order by recording the last line as: "Thus the instant case is fully disposed of." Mr. Singh supporting the order impugned tried to impress upon that learned tribunal considering the entire facts and events held before the Lok Adalat when observed that question of existence of claim against his client did no more arise and as a consequence thereof the instant case was fully disposed of in the form of revision of such order within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution would not be applicable. Submitted further, the impugned order at best is appealable within the ambit of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the instant case was fully disposed of. According to Mr. Singh, when there was a statutory right of appeal and the same was not opted by the petitioners, the application like the instant one is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following cases: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. According to Mr. Singh, when there was a statutory right of appeal and the same was not opted by the petitioners, the application like the instant one is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following cases: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2003(2) TAC 26 (SC) (para. 5) and Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors. reported in 2006(1) TAC 969 (SC) : (2006)1 WBLR (SC) 986 (para. 17). 10. Consulting the provisions of law and the cases cited at the Bar admittedly in the midst of the proceeding pending before the Tribunal the case was referred to Daily Lok Adalat at Suri, Birbhum. Though Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Co, Ltd. or the vehicle owner, insured, did not appear on March 4, 2015 before said Lok Adalat, learned Judges of the Lok Adalat partially settling the claim between the petitioner and Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. had sent back the record for further proceeding before the Tribunal. It is obvious that disposal of a civil case or a case before a Tribunal means disposal after adjudication. Adjudication means adducing evidence by the parties followed by hearing of the parties either in person or through their learned Counsel ending into decision on merit. Therefore, if there is no adjudication it cannot be said that the matter is disposed of on merits either fully or partially. As it has happened in the case on hand that in the process of Daily Lok Adalat there was a partial settlement. 11. The Court did not yet come across with any law as to whether in the process of disposing of a case through Lok Adalat can be effected partially by keeping the rest part alive for its disposal by adjudication or otherwise in the regular Court. The impugned order does not keep any indication, may be for the reason that no point was raised on the issue by either of the sides for which the instant application gets berth for consideration before this Court. 12. Within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution there is scope of judicial review to overview as to whether the judicial functionaries, subordinate to the High Court, have been discharging their functions by maintaining all legal provisions in correct manner, otherwise in the event of complaint interference by this Court may be required. 13. Mr. 12. Within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution there is scope of judicial review to overview as to whether the judicial functionaries, subordinate to the High Court, have been discharging their functions by maintaining all legal provisions in correct manner, otherwise in the event of complaint interference by this Court may be required. 13. Mr. Mondal though relied on the case of State of Punjab (supra) that the instant application has been filed as because no appeal lies against the order of the Lok Adalat. He specifically relied on paragraphs 11 and 12 therefrom which are set out-below:- "11. The travails of the parties did not end with the Lok Adalat. Because the Lok Adalat directed the aggrieved-party to move the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits if they had objection to its order, the appellants moved the High Court by an application in the appeal, stating that they had not agreed to the enhancement proposed by the Lok Adalat and praying that the order of the Lok Adalat increasing the compensation by R. 62,000 may be set aside as there was no settlement or compromise. The learned Single Judge failed to notice that there was no settlement or compromise between the parties; that the order made by the Lok Adalat was not an award in terms of any settlement as contemplated under the LSA Act; that the Lok Adalat had clearly stated that the parties may either agree to it, or move the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law; and that in the absence of any settlement and "award", the appeal before the High Court continued to be pending and could not have been treated as finally disposed of, the learned Single Judge instead of perusing the order of the Lok Adalat and hearing the appeal on. merits, proceeded on a baseless assumption that the order dated 3.8.2001 of the Lok Adalat was a binding award and therefore an application to hear the appeal, was not maintainable and the only remedy for the appellants was to challenge the order of the Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 12. merits, proceeded on a baseless assumption that the order dated 3.8.2001 of the Lok Adalat was a binding award and therefore an application to hear the appeal, was not maintainable and the only remedy for the appellants was to challenge the order of the Lok Adalat by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil Court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court, if any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 an/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but. directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits." 14. The above-quoted observations of the Supreme Court, of course, have made clear that though the appeal would not lie against order of Lok Adalat, but the High Court can interfere with by invoking Article 227 also against the order passed by the Lok Adalat. However, the impugned application under Article 227 has not been directed against the order of the Lok Adalat. It has been directed against the order of the regular tribunal as it has been indicated hereinbefore. Therefore, applicability of the case of State of Punjab (supra) in the case on hand can be well-distinguished. 15. Now to give answer as to the points raised by Mr. Singh, I have discussed already that question of appear arises when there is disposal in respect of a proceeding after adjudication. Therefore, applicability of the case of State of Punjab (supra) in the case on hand can be well-distinguished. 15. Now to give answer as to the points raised by Mr. Singh, I have discussed already that question of appear arises when there is disposal in respect of a proceeding after adjudication. Therefore, question of preferring appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could have arisen if in terms of the order passed by the Lok Adalat, the rest part of the claim of the petitioners would have been adjudicated, provided such adjudication would be maintainable. Therefore, principally though the cases referred to by Mr. Singh are well acceptable that against a case finally disposed of by the tribunal is only appealable under Section 173 of the 1988 Act and not entertainable in any manner either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, but since the impugned order, prima facie, cannot be accepted as a final disposal order after adjudication by giving decision also on maintainability of the claim case for the partial claim as against the remaining opposite parties including Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. the impugned order bearing the text "fully disposed of" suffers from perversity which requires revisiting for decision afresh inviting the parties to lay arguments on the point of maintainability and to discharge observations and final decisions thereby towards the partial claim of the petitioner. 16. In view of the above, save and except the order of discharging the cheque in favour of the petitioners in terms of the order of the Lok Adalat dated March 4, 2015, the rest part of the order of disposal in the manner it was done on May 8, 2015 by learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum in MACC No. 17 of 2011 is set aside. 17. Learned Tribunal is directed to frame issues if not yet framed, with the additional issue on the point of maintainability as to whether after disposal of partial claim before Daily Lok Adalat the claim case could be maintainable for any further partial claim and by giving the opportunity to both sides to lead evidence upon hearing both sides to their satisfaction shall record final order/decision as the case may be without being persuaded by any observation made hereinbefore by this Court. 18. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. 19. 18. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. 19. The CO is accordingly disposed of. 20. The department is directed to communicate a copy of this order to learned claims tribunal for information and compliance. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.