ORDER : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the trial Court, relating to the case. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to set-aside the compromise award/decree date dated 26.08.0007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat Banch No.04 Raigarh in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.09/2007. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order / direction if the money deposited in the name of Madhav Prasad Shadangi at Kshetiya Gramin Bank Raigarh in savings account No.19/3736 of Rs.04,98,176/- and 3,00,00/- Rs. fixed deposited in the same Bank and at post office Raigarh as fixed deposited of 50,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondents on the basis of compromise award/ decree date dated 26.08.2007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat Banch No.04 Raigarh in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.09/2007 the same shall be recover from them. 10.4 any other relief/reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Facts of the case are that respondent No.1, brother of petitioner No.1, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1925’) against one of another sisters of petitioner No.1, arrayed as the non-applicant, namely, Soochi Shadangi, claiming the amount of Rs.4,98,176/- deposited in the name of her father late Madhav Prasad Shadangi at Kshetriya Gramin Bank Raigarh, in the Saving Account No.19/3736 and an amount of Rs.30,000/- lying as Fixed Deposit in the same Bank and also an amount of Rs.50,000/- lying as Fixed Deposit in the Post Office, Raigarh. The Succession Application has been preferred before the Civil Judge Class-I, Raigarh bearing Case No.9/2007. Respondent No.1 did not implead the petitioners as party, though they are also the daughters of late Madhav Prasad Shadangi and wrongly stated that petitioner No.1 was missing since 2001. The said succession application was decided by the Lok Adalat held on 26th August, 2007 and in a fraudulent manner a compromise has been arrived to deprive the rights of the present petitioners. Thus the impugned award is not sustainable. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that before passing the impugned award proper procedure has not been followed and the applicant has wrongly stated the material fact about missing of petitioner No.1. Thus the impugned award is not sustainable. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that before passing the impugned award proper procedure has not been followed and the applicant has wrongly stated the material fact about missing of petitioner No.1. The Succession Court has not issued any publication notice and, therefore, the award passed earlier did not come to the notice of the petitioners, as petitioner No.1 was residing in the State of Gujarat. Thus the impugned award has been passed by practicing fraud, which deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the said amount has already been withdrawn and after withdrawal, the said money was handed over to petitioner No.1. He submits that procedure for grant of succession certificate is summary in nature and no res judicata applies. If the petitioners are having any right, they may file a civil suit to establish their right. He also submits that father of petitioner No.1 has lodged an FIR about missing of petitioner No.1 in the year 2001. Thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. From perusal of the record of Succession Case No.9/2007, it appears that respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 372 of the Act, 1925 arraying one of his sisters i.e. non-applicant/respondent No.2 as party. Thereafter the case was listed for appearance of the non-applicant on 1.6.2007, 16.7.2007 and 23rd August, 2007. Without serving any notice to non-applicant/respondent No.2, the applicant himself informed the trial Court on 23rd August, 2007 that there are chances of amicable settlement and the case was referred to the Lok Adalat. On 26th August, 2007, in the presence of the respondents, the Lok Adalat has passed the award. 7. In the Act, 1925, procedure on an application filed for grant of succession certificate has been prescribed under Section 373 of the said Act. For the sake of brevity the said provision reads thus:- “373. On 26th August, 2007, in the presence of the respondents, the Lok Adalat has passed the award. 7. In the Act, 1925, procedure on an application filed for grant of succession certificate has been prescribed under Section 373 of the said Act. For the sake of brevity the said provision reads thus:- “373. Procedure on application.— (1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing— (a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and (b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. (4)When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants.” 8. Further, succession certificate granted under Part X of the Act, 1925 may be revoked in certain circumstances enumerated in Section 383 of the Act, 1925, which reads thus:- “383. Further, succession certificate granted under Part X of the Act, 1925 may be revoked in certain circumstances enumerated in Section 383 of the Act, 1925, which reads thus:- “383. Revocation of certificate.— A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:— (a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance; (b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case; (c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked.” 9. For grant of succession certificate, a separate Court fee is prescribed under Schedule I at Article 12 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the State Government had also notified for exemption of Court fee and in case of settlement before Lok Adalat vide Notification F. No.9-1-86-B-XXI, dated 10th April, 1987. For grant of succession certificate, a separate Court fee is prescribed under Schedule I at Article 12 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the State Government had also notified for exemption of Court fee and in case of settlement before Lok Adalat vide Notification F. No.9-1-86-B-XXI, dated 10th April, 1987. For the sake of brevity, the said notification and Article 12 appended with Schedule I read thus:- “Notification F. No.9-1-86-B-XXI, dated the 10th April, 1987.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (No.7 of 1870), the State Government hereby remits in whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh the court fees payable- (1) On the application made to a Court of competent jurisdiction, - (a) for passing a decree in terms of compromise arrived at before or through the instrumentality of Lok Adalat; (b) for recording an adjustment of decree or order when proceeded by a settlement or compromise in writing arrived at before or through the instrumentality of Lok Adalat; (c) for compounding an offence under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, as a result of a compromise arrived at before or through the instrumentality of Lok Adalat; and (2) On a plaint drawn in terms of the compromise arrived at before or through the instrumentality of Lok Adalat, filed before a court of competent jurisdiction. (3) In case of settlement of a case pending before a competent court is made through the instrumentality of Lok Adalat {or any of the mode provided under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code (Act No.5 of 1908)} the party shall be entitled to refund of the court fees already paid by him.” 12. Certificate under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (XXXIX of 1925. When the total amount or value of debts of securities specified in the certificate under Section 374 of the Act, exceeds one thousand rupees but does not exceed twenty five thousand rupees. 3 percentum on such amount or value and 5 percentum on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended under Section 376 of the Act. When such amount or value exceeds twenty five thousand rupees but does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. 3 percentum on such amount or value and 5 percentum on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended under Section 376 of the Act. When such amount or value exceeds twenty five thousand rupees but does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. Seven hundred and fifty rupees plus four percentum on the amount or value in excess of twenty five thousand rupees and six percentum on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended under Section 376 of the Act. When such amount or value exceeds fifty thousand rupees but does not exceed five lacs rupees. One thousand seven hundred and fifty rupees plus five percentum on the amount or value in excess of fifty thousand rupees and twelve percentum on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended under Section 376 of the Act. When such amount exceeds five lacs rupees. Twenty four thousand two hundred and fifty rupees plus six percentum on the amount or value in excess of Five lacs rupees and twelve percentum on the amount or value of any debt or security to which the certificate is extended under Section 376 of the Act. 10. In view of the above, it is apparent that no such notification has been issued by the State Government for exemption of Court fee on the said certificate under Part X of the Act, 1925 read with Article 12 appended with Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 11. In the instant case, no such notice of the application has been published as per the statutory requirement under Section 373 of the Act, 1925 and only on the basis of compromise, the said application has been decided. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that in the matter of grant of succession certificate, a duty is cast upon the Succession Court to investigate on the point and take such evidence as it considers proper for the purposes of satisfying itself as to whether the applicant has prima facie right for the succession certificate, as such right cannot be adjudicated and decided on the basis of compromise. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. 2010 SCC OnLine SC 777, has considered the aspect of ‘suitable’ and ‘unsuitable’ categorization of cases to hold that the aforesaid categorization is not intended to be exhaustive or rigid and they are illustrative which can be subjected to just exceptions or additions by the Court/Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an ADR process. The following was materially observed at paras-27 & 28:- “27. The following categories of cases are normally considered to be not suitable for ADR process having regard to their nature: (i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve public interest or interest of numerous persons who are not parties before the court. (In fact, even a compromise in such a suit is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in the suit, before its acceptance). (ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices (as contrasted from disputes between two groups trying to get control over the management of societies, clubs, association, etc.) (iii) Cases involving grant of authority by the court after enquiry, as for example, suits for grant of probate or letters of administration. (iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion, etc. (v) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against the Government. (vi) Cases involving prosecution for criminal offences. 28. All other suits and cases of civil nature in particular the following categories of cases (whether pending in civil courts or other special tribunals/forums) are normally suitable for ADR processes: (i) All cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts, including disputes arising out of contracts (including all money claims); disputes relating to specific performance; disputes between suppliers and customers; disputes between bankers and customers; disputes between developers/builders and customers; disputes between landlords and tenants/licensor and licensees; disputes between insurer and insured; (ii) All cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children; disputes relating to partition/division among family members/coparceners/co-owners; and disputes relating to partnership among partners. (iii) All cases where there is a need for continuation of the pre-existing relationship in spite of the disputes, including disputes between neighbours (relating to easementary rights, encroachments, nuisance, etc.); disputes between employers and employees; disputes among members of societies/associations/apartment owners' associations; (iv) All cases relating to tortious liability, including claims for compensation in motor accidents/other accidents; and (v) All consumer disputes, including disputes where a trader/supplier/manufacturer/service provider is keen to maintain his business/professional reputation and credibility or product popularity. The above enumeration of “suitable” and “unsuitable” categorisation of cases is not intended to be exhaustive or rigid. They are illustrative, which can be subjected to just exceptions or additions by the court/tribunal exercising its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an ADR process.” 13. Since in the case at hand, no such notice of the application has been published as per the statutory requirement under Section 373 of the Act, 1925 and only on the basis of compromise, the said application has been decided and the Succession Court has failed in its duty to investigate on the point and take such evidence as it considers proper for the purposes of satisfying itself as to whether the applicant has prima facie right for the succession certificate, as the same cannot be adjudicated and decided on the basis of compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise award for issuing succession certificate is bad in law. However, considering the fact that the amount deposited in the account of the deceased both in the Bank and the Post Office has already been disbursed on the basis of such award, also considering that no res judicata applies even otherwise, so in the peculiar fact situation of the case, liberty is granted in favour of the petitioners to file a civil suit, if so advised, for their share, if any. It is made clear that in event the suit is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously. 14. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 15. Registry shall after due approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice issue appropriate direction to all the Judicial Officers of the State in this regard.