JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. In instant petition, petitioners have assailed part of impugned order dated 22.5.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Court No. 1, Amb in an application filed on behalf of plaintiffs/petitioners, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) for amendment of plaint, whereby application has been allowed partly, by permitting the amendment by allowing plaintiffs to plead that suit property is Joint Hindu family coparcenary ancestral property under Mitakshra Hindu Law, but rejecting second proposed amendment to add another property situated at Yamunanagar, Haryana in the suit property in present suit, on the ground of resjudicata with observation that suit property situated in Haryana was subject matter of the suit which was filed in a competent Court in Haryana, but was got dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 11.7.2016 by plaintiffs on the alleged objection of defendants. 2. Plaintiffs, being aggrieved by rejection of proposed amendment, disallowing addition of property of Yamunanagar in the suit property, has assailed this part of the impugned order, passed by trial Court, on the ground that suit with subject matter of property at Yamunanagar in Haryana, was withdrawn with specific statement that suit property of that suit shall be added in suit property of present suit pending at Amb. 3. The conclusion, that suit filed at Yamunanagar was withdrawn unconditionally, has been drawn by the trial Court on the basis of order dated 11.7.2016 announced in Daily Lok Adalat by Additional Civil Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, which reads as under:- “Bharti Sharma Vs. Rahul Sharma Present: Plaintiff Bharti Sharma in person with Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate. Sh.Sourabh Kaushik, Advocate for the defendant. Suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered. File taken up today in Daily Lok Adalat. Today plaintiff Bharti Sharma has personally appear and suffered a statement thereby seeking to withdraw the present suit. She is identified by Sh. Ssunil Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff. Statement recorded separately. Heard. In view of the above mentioned statement, the present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in Daily Lok Adalat. 11.07.2016 (Sunil Jindal) Additional Civil Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.” 4. She is identified by Sh. Ssunil Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff. Statement recorded separately. Heard. In view of the above mentioned statement, the present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in Daily Lok Adalat. 11.07.2016 (Sunil Jindal) Additional Civil Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.” 4. English translation of statement of plaintiff No. 1, on the basis of which the suit was withdrawn, reads as under:- “Stated that present suit is being withdrawn on technical ground. A suit related to the property of my husband, filed prior in time, is pending adjudication at Amb in District Una, H.P., therefore, does not want to continue present suit. Be consigned. The property of my husband, situated at Yamunanagar shall be challenged in case pending in Una.” 5. Order 23 Rule 1(1) of CPC provides that a plaintiff, at any time after the institution of a suit, may against all or any of the defendant(s), abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. Rule 1(3) of order 23 of CPC provides that where there is some formal defect in the suit leading to its failure or there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit or part of a claim, the Court may grant permission to withdraw to the plaintiff from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of subject matter of such suit or such part of claim. Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC provides that when any suit or part of claim has been abandoned under Sub Rule (1) or a suit or part of claim has been withdrawn without permission referred in sub Rule (3), plaintiff beside liability to pay cost as may be awarded by the Court, shall also be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim. 6. As has also been canvassed on behalf of defendants, the trial Court, for mention of the fact in the order passed by Daily Lok Adalat on 11.7.2016 that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, has rejected the amendment proposed by the plaintiffs to add property of Yamunanagar in the suit property of present suit. 7. 6. As has also been canvassed on behalf of defendants, the trial Court, for mention of the fact in the order passed by Daily Lok Adalat on 11.7.2016 that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, has rejected the amendment proposed by the plaintiffs to add property of Yamunanagar in the suit property of present suit. 7. Decision of the trial Court and plea of defendants, in my considered view is erroneous for the reasons assigned herein after. 8. In order dated 11.7.2016 passed by Civil Court Yamunanagar acting as Daily Lok Adalat it is clearly stated that in view of statement of plaintiff recorded separately, suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Though, the said Court has added one word “unconditionally”, giving an impression that in the statement of plaintiff, she had withdrawn the suit unconditionally. Whereas, perusal of statement of plaintiff quoted supra, unambiguously establishes that the suit was proposed to be withdrawn on technical ground with clear further averment that case related to the property of husband of petitioner, filed prior in time, was pending in Amb, District Una, H.P. and therefore, property of her husband at Yamunanagar had to be challenged in the case pending at Una and, therefore, she did not want to continue the suit at Yamunanagar. Therefore, order, passed on the basis of statement of plaintiff reflecting dismissal of suit as withdrawn unconditionally, is factually incorrect. 9. Order dated 11.7.2016 itself suggests that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement of plaintiff and the said statement nowhere suggests that plaintiff had prayed for dismissal of the suit unconditionally as reason i.e. condition for withdrawing the suit was stated by the plaintiff in her statement in unambiguous terms. 10. Lok Adalats are organized/established under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (herein after to be referred as the “Act”). Section 19 of the Act provides organization of Lok Adalats and Section 19(5) provides that Lok Adalats shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any suit pending before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. As evident from order dated 11.7.2016, suit filed by plaintiffs at Yamunanagar was assigned to and accordingly taken up in Daily Lok Adalat. As evident from order dated 11.7.2016, suit filed by plaintiffs at Yamunanagar was assigned to and accordingly taken up in Daily Lok Adalat. Therefore, Additional Civil Judge, Yamunanagar was acting as Lok Adalat and the case pending in Civil Court was assigned to it, therefore, Lok Adalat was having jurisdiction to take up the matter. 11. Question arises as to whether Lok Adalat can pass an order beyond scope of compromise or contrary to the settlement arrived at between the parties to a dispute or beyond the statement of a party, nullifying the portion of the statement, whereby a party asserts his/her right or expresses reason, cause or condition for taking a decision before Lok Adalat, as has been specifically stated by petitioner that suit was being withdrawn to add the suit property in the suit property in another suit filed prior in time. 12. Exercising the powers conferred under Section 29 of the Act, Central Authority has formed the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009. Regulations 9, 13(6), 16(3), 16(4), 17(1), 17(5) and 19 would be relevant to be referred for adjudication of issues involved in present case, which read as under:- “9. Jurisdiction of Lok Adalats.---Lok Adalats shall have the power only to help the parties to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute and, while so doing, it shall not issue any direction of order in respect of such dispute between the parties. 13. Procedure of Lok Adalats. (1) … … …. … … …. (6) The Lok Adalat shall not determine a reference, at its own instance, but shall determine only on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement arrived at: Provided further that the award of the Lok Adalat is neither a verdict nor an option arrived at by any decision making process. 16. Communication between Lok Adalat and parties. 16. Communication between Lok Adalat and parties. (1) … … … … … … (3) When it appears to the Lok Adalat that there exists elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the terms of a possible settlement may be formulated by the Lok Adalat and given to the parties for their observations and modifications, if any, suggested by the parties can be taken into consideration and terms of a possible settlement may be re-formulated by the Lok Adalat. (4) If the parties reach a compromise or settlement of the dispute, the Lok Adalat may draw up or assist the parties in drawing up the terms of such compromise or settlement. 17. Award.— (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by the parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat. (2) … … … … … … (5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures:- (a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and (b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. 19. Failure of Lok Adalat proceedings:--If a pre-litigation matter is not settled in the Lok Adalat, the parties may be advised to resort to other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques or to approach a court of law and in appropriate-cases they may be advised about the availability of legal aid”. 13. Regulation 17(5) provides that member of Lok Adalat before signing the award shall also satisfy themselves that terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided and the parties have entered into settlement voluntarily and not on account of threat, coercion or undue influence. 14. 13. Regulation 17(5) provides that member of Lok Adalat before signing the award shall also satisfy themselves that terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided and the parties have entered into settlement voluntarily and not on account of threat, coercion or undue influence. 14. In present case as apparent from contents of impugned order of the trial Court an objection was taken by defendants with respect to maintainability of suit filed at Yamunanagar for pendency of prior suit between same parties at Amb in District Una, whereupon plaintiffs had withdrawn the suit at Yamunanagar by making statement supra with intention to add the property of Yamunanagar in the suit property of suit pending at Amb. From presence of parties marked in Lok Adalat, it is apparent that statement of plaintiff was recorded in presence of counsel for defendants and in terms of the statement, suit was permitted to be withdrawn. Lok Adalat has a right to determine and to arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties, however, Lok Adalat has no authority to adjudicate the matter on merits. In case, there is no settlement or compromise, Lok Adalat is supposed to refer the Civil Suit back to the Civil Court. Similarly in case Lok Adalat concludes that, for just, legal and valid reasons, order cannot be passed as proposed by the parties or a party, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass an order which is beyond the scope of proposal, without consent of the party(ies) and in such eventuality Lok Adalat shall have no option except to refer the matter to the regular Court or direct the parties to resort to legal remedy/recourse available to the party(ies). 15. As evident from Regulation 17 drawing of award is merely an administrative act, whereby terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties are to be incorporated in the award. In present case petitioners, in Lok Adalat, had agreed for withdrawal of the suit with assertion that suit property at Yamunanagar shall be added in the suit property of the suit pending at Amb. The defendants remained silent, which indicates that they had not opposed the proposal of plaintiffs and, therefore, the terms of settlement before Lok Adalat was that suit was to be withdrawn with liberty to add suit property of that suit in present suit. The defendants remained silent, which indicates that they had not opposed the proposal of plaintiffs and, therefore, the terms of settlement before Lok Adalat was that suit was to be withdrawn with liberty to add suit property of that suit in present suit. The addition of word “unconditionally” is not only superfluous, but beyond jurisdiction of Lok Adalat. The terms of settlement between the parties before Lok Adalat are to be construed by reading statement of plaintiff and order passed by Lok Adalat is to be interpreted as such. 16. As discussed supra, as a matter of fact, order (Award) of Lok Adalat has to reflect the settlement between the parties, but not any condition or opinion which is foreign to the statement/settlement between the parties. Therefore, the word ‘unconditionally’ mentioned in order passed by Lok Adalat has to be ignored and right of the plaintiffs to incorporate/add the suit property of Yamunanagar in the suit property of present suit is to be determined accordingly. As already discussed, from the statement of plaintiff made before Lok Adalat at Yamunanagar does not suggests that suit was withdrawn unconditionally, rather it clearly establishes that suit was withdrawn on account of technical defect with intention/permission to add the suit property of that suit in the suit property of present suit and plaintiffs had never abandoned the suit with respect to the property at Yamunanagar or a part thereof. 17. In normal course, plaintiffs should have been relegated to the Court which has passed the order, i.e. Civil Court, Yamunanagar, for rectifying the mistake or correction of the order, however, in present case it may not be necessary for the reason that the order has not been passed by regular Civil Court, but in Daily Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass such order which is beyond the scope of statement of parties or terms of settlement. Otherwise also, at this stage relegating the parties to Civil Court Yamunanagar (Haryana) will cause unnecessary and unwarranted multiplicity of litigation. 18. During arguments, faced with aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the defendants has also communicated no objection for allowing the amendment as proposed by plaintiffs with respect to addition of property at Yamunanagar in the suit property of present suit. 19. 18. During arguments, faced with aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the defendants has also communicated no objection for allowing the amendment as proposed by plaintiffs with respect to addition of property at Yamunanagar in the suit property of present suit. 19. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that rejection of amendment proposing addition of property of Yamunanagar in suit property of present suit, the trial Court has committed material irregularity and illegality and, therefore, part of impugned order dated 22.5.2019, whereby proposal of amendment has been rejected, is set aside, but maintaining the portion of that order whereby amendment proposed to plead suit property as joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Ancestral Property under Mitakshra Hindu Law, has been permitted. 20. Resultantly, plaintiffs are permitted to carry out amendment proposed by them and the order dated 22.5.2019 stands modified to that extent. 21. Amended plaint, if not already filed, be filed in the trial Court on first date of appearance. The same shall be taken on record by the trial Court and thereafter trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. 22. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 3rd May, 2021. Copy of order be transmitted to trial court. No order as to cost. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.