How a Case Reaches a Lok Adalat: Cognizance, Reference and Pre-Litigation Matters

Section 20(2): a pre-litigation matter, taken up by the Authority

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under section 19(1) may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to a matter referred to in section 19(5)(ii), that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer that matter to the Lok Adalat for determination.

The proviso again supplies the fairness: no matter shall be referred except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.

Three points are worth drawing out.

One party is enough to start it. The application comes from "any one of the parties". That does not mean the other party can be dragged into a settlement, because nothing can be settled without them; it means one party can get the process going.

The other party must be heard first. Regulation 10(1A), inserted in 2018, repeats this in terms for pre-litigation matters.

Territorial jurisdiction still matters. Regulation 12(1) requires that in a pre-litigation matter it be ensured that the court for which the Lok Adalat is organised has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. A Lok Adalat in Nashik cannot take up a dispute that no Nashik court could have tried.

Section 20(3) and (4): what the Lok Adalat then does

Section 20(3): where a case is referred under sub-section (1), or a reference is made under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.

Section 20(4): every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement, and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

Section 20(4) is the sentence most often misused in answers. "Guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles" describes how a Lok Adalat persuades, not a power to decide. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh is explicit that when the Act speaks of "determination" and "award" it does not contemplate an adjudicatory judicial determination but a non-adjudicatory one based on the parties' own compromise. Chapter 120 works that case through.

Section 20(5) to (7): what happens when there is no settlement

This is the part students skip and examiners like, because it is where the two doors part company again.

Section 20(5): where no award is made because no compromise or settlement could be arrived at, the record of the case shall be returned by the Lok Adalat to the court from which the reference was received under sub-section (1), for disposal in accordance with law.

Section 20(6): where no award is made in a pre-litigation matter referred under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall advise the parties to seek remedy in a court.

Section 20(7): where the record is returned under sub-section (5), the court shall proceed to deal with the case from the stage which was reached before the reference.

Section 20(7) is the guarantee that makes it safe to try. A party loses nothing by going to a Lok Adalat. The case does not restart, no step is undone, and nothing said in the attempt counts against them. If it fails, the file goes back and the suit picks up exactly where it left off.

Regulation 11(3) adds the practical rule about the file itself: judicial records called for by the Lok Adalat shall be returned within ten days of the Lok Adalat, whether or not the case settled, with an endorsement about the result, unless the court concerned permits them to be retained longer.

Distinctions worth keeping straight

A worked example, both doors

Door one. Anjali sued her builder in 2022 for possession of a flat and damages. The suit is at the stage of the builder's evidence. At a hearing, Anjali's advocate says she is willing to go to a Lok Adalat; the builder's advocate says nothing either way.

Only one party has applied, so this is section 20(1)(i)(b). The court must be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement, and, because it is not a case of both parties agreeing, the proviso requires that the parties be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Regulation 10(2) requires the court not to refer mechanically.

Say the reference is made and the Lok Adalat sits, and the builder refuses every figure suggested. No award is made. Under section 20(5) the record goes back to the civil court, and under section 20(7) the suit resumes from the builder's evidence. Under regulation 11(3) the file must be back within ten days with an endorsement of the result.

Door two. Now change the facts. Anjali has not sued at all. She writes to the District Legal Services Authority asking that her dispute be placed before the Lok Adalat.

This is section 20(2), a pre-litigation matter under section 19(5)(ii). The Authority may refer it, but only after giving the builder a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Under regulation 12(1) the Authority must ensure that the court for which the Lok Adalat is organised would have territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.

If the builder engages and they settle, an award follows and section 21 applies. If he does not, or they cannot agree, section 20(6) applies: the Lok Adalat advises the parties to seek their remedy in a court. There is no record to send back, because no case was ever filed.

What beginners get wrong

A Lok Adalat cannot take up a pending case by itself. Regulation 10(1) is explicit: it gets jurisdiction only when a competent court orders the reference under section 20 or section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The "chances of settlement" condition belongs to clause (i), not to the whole of section 20(1).

The hearing proviso does not apply where both parties agree. It applies to a reference on one party's application or on the court's own motion.

Failure costs the parties nothing. Section 20(7) resumes the case from the stage reached before the reference.

Section 20(4) does not give a power to decide. Being guided by justice, equity and fair play is how the bench persuades; Jalour Singh holds that a Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory function at all.

Quick revision

• Section 20(1): the court shall refer a pending case where (i)(a) the parties agree, or (i)(b) one party applies and the court is prima facie satisfied there are chances of settlement, or (ii) the court is satisfied the matter is appropriate. Proviso: reasonable opportunity of being heard before a reference under (i)(b) or (ii).
• Section 20(2): for a pre-litigation matter, the organising Authority or Committee may refer it on an application by any one party, after hearing the other party.
• Section 20(3): the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case and arrive at a compromise or settlement. Section 20(4): with utmost expedition, guided by justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
• Section 20(5): no settlement in a referred case, the record goes back to the referring court. Section 20(6): no settlement in a pre-litigation matter, the parties are advised to seek remedy in a court. Section 20(7): the court resumes from the stage reached before the reference.
• Regulation 10: no mechanical references; jurisdiction only on a court's order under section 20 or section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regulation 11(3): records back within ten days with an endorsement. Regulation 12(1): territorial jurisdiction must exist for a pre-litigation matter.

Test yourself

1. Can a Lok Adalat take cognizance of a pending suit on its own? No. Under section 20(1) the reference is made by the court, and regulation 10(1) confirms that a Lok Adalat gets jurisdiction over a case only when a court of competent jurisdiction orders it referred under section 20 of the Act or section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Both parties to a pending appeal jointly ask for a reference. Must the court hear them before referring? No. The proviso to section 20(1) requires a hearing only for a reference under clause (i)(b), on one party's application, or under clause (ii), on the court's own satisfaction. Where the parties agree under clause (i)(a) no hearing is needed.

3. What happens to a pending case that a Lok Adalat cannot settle? No award is made; under section 20(5) the record is returned to the referring court for disposal in accordance with law, and under section 20(7) the court deals with the case from the stage that had been reached before the reference. Under regulation 11(3) the record goes back within ten days with an endorsement of the result.

4. A dispute has never been filed in court. How can it reach a Lok Adalat? Under section 20(2), on the application of any one of the parties to the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat, and only after the other party has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Regulation 12(1) also requires that the court for which the Lok Adalat is organised would have territorial jurisdiction.

5. If a pre-litigation matter does not settle, what does the Lok Adalat do? Section 20(6): it advises the parties to seek their remedy in a court. There is no record to return, because no case was filed.