Shalu vs Vineet

S.P. Bangarh, J.—Respondent, herein, filed Civil Suit No. 815-C of 2012 against the petitioner, herein, for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to 1/2 share of all the benefits of land acquisition, in respect of land, more fully described in the cause title of the plaint. He also sought declaration that award No. 12 dated 12.1.2011 and the award/decree dated 15.2.2011, passed by Shri Sukhpreet Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, in Civil Suit No. 90-C of 2011 titled ''Arun and Shalu v. Kavita,'' in favour of the petitioner qua 1/2 share, is based on misrepresentation and wrong facts, to deprive the respondent of the above said benefits of his share, and the same is not binding on his rights and is liable to be set aside. Petitioner, herein, who is defendant before the trial Court, on her putting appearance in the suit, filed an application u/s 9 of the CPC read with Section 22E of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short ''the Act''), that parties are wife and husband, respectively, and the respondent filed the suit seeking declaration, wherein, challenge is to the award dated 15.2.2011, passed by Shri Sukhpreet Singh, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, in Civil Suit No. 90-C of 2011. She further averred that she has already moved an application against the respondent and his family members before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka (Punjab), which is under investigation. Now, to counter that complaint moved by her, the respondent, herein, has filed the suit, that is devoid of merit.

It was further averred in the application that the entire suit is based upon the award dated 15.2.2011, and it is barred under the provisions of the Act, as permanent Lok Adalat is only an authority to help settlement of disputes between the parties, in conciliation proceedings. If no conciliation is possible, the permanent Lok Adalat can record failure and close the complaint, leaving the parties to approach appropriate forum or Court, for relief. Petitioner further averred in the application that the permanent Lok Adalat has certain characteristics of regular Lok Adalat, constituted under Chapter VI of the Act. The provisions of the Act are only supplementary and alternate to other remedies. It is up to the parties to opt to invoke the jurisdiction of the permanent Lok Adalat, constituted under the Act, or to pursue other legal remedies. So long as, the permanent Lok Adalat is seized of the matter, no other Court or authority can allow the party to invoke its jurisdiction, for deciding the same dispute. The remedies available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are available on very limited grounds.

It was averred by the petitioner in the application that she has become absolute owner of the land, on the basis of the award dated 15.2.2011 and the provisions of the Act are very much clear, as described in Section 22E of the Act, wherein, it has been enshrined that the award of the permanent Lok Adalat shall be final. As per sub-clause (4) of Section 22E of the Act, every award made by the permanent Lok Adalat under the Act, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings, meaning, thereby, that the award passed by the Court under the Act, became final and could not be challenged by the respondent, by way of filing a suit for declaration, that has been filed by him before the trial Court. He could only challenge the legality and propriety of the award in a writ petition, in terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner made prayer for acceptance of the application and for dismissal of the suit.

This application, on the other hand, was opposed by the respondent by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the civil suit was decided by the civil Court and not by the Lok Adalat, as there is no mentions of designation of the Court as Lok Adalat, either in the title of the award or signature and seal and designation as Lok Adalat. The suit was filed by the then plaintiffs against the defendant as a civil Court and the defendant appeared and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs of the suit. There was no settlement or compromise between the parties in the Court and there was no order sheet of the Court for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat or converting the Court itself into Lok Adalat. The parties were never informed that the matter is being dealt with as Lok Adalat. Instead of passing the judgment and decree on admission, the Court has passed the order/judgment and the word ''award'' has only been used once in the order. So, it cannot be considered as the award under the Act, at all.

It is further averred that the alleged award-cum-decree itself mentions that, as per the Act, the award shall bind only the parties and not a non-party to the litigation. It was further averred that the present suit is fully maintainable and not barred by Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 22E of the Act. Even the award of the Lok Adalat is not final between the parties also. Any party aggrieved by the award of the Lok Adalat, can file a writ petition. It was further averred that since he (respondent, herein) was not a party to that suit or award or decree, he was not bound by that. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of the suit was, thus, made.

After hearing both the sides, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 24.5.2013 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the application of the petitioner, herein.

Aggrieved against the order (supra), the petitioner, herein, who is defendant before the trial Court, and whose application for dismissal of the suit on the ground of its maintainability, was dismissed, has come up in this civil revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for acceptance of the application, thereby, dismissing the suit of the respondent, on the ground of its maintainability.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court fell in grave error in observing that the respondent, herein, was not a party to the earlier litigation and, therefore, the civil suit filed by him, is maintainable. He further contended that the trial Court ignored the fact that the respondent is none else than the husband of the petitioner and the latter was entitled to the compensation amount vide award dated 15.2.2011, in lieu of her maintenance, in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955. He further contended that the petitioner had acquired absolute right in the compensation amount, in terms of the award dated 15.2.2011, that was passed by the Lok Adalat. He further contended that this award could only be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and not by way of suit, that has been done by the respondent. So, he contended, that the civil revision may be allowed and the suit of the respondent, that has been filed by him before the trial Court, maybe dismissed, on the ground of its non-maintainability and he should be relegated to the remedy of filing Civil Writ Petition, that is available to him under the Constitution of India.

Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but those are devoid of merit.

It is, no doubt, true that the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others, , held that the Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Its functions relate purely to conciliation. It determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties. It was held that the Lok Adalat has no power to hear parties to adjudicate a case. It discusses the subject matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement, It was, however, further held that the award passed by the Lok Adalat, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, duly signed by the parties and annexed to the award, is final and binding on parties. It is executable, as if it is a decree of a civil Court. No appeal against it lies to any Court. Such an award can only be challenged by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, and, that, too, on very limited grounds.

One thing is very much clear from the judgment (supra), that the parties to the award of the Lok Adalat are bound by it, and no appeal against it lies. A party to the award can challenge it only under the Constitution of India. But, this judgment is inconsequential to the petitioner as, indubitably, the respondent was not a party in the suit, wherein, the award dated 15.2.2011 was passed by the Lok Adalat. So, the judgment (supra) can be avoided by the respondent. This judgment would have been binding upon him, if he would have been a party to the impugned award. When, he is not a party to the award and, when, it is his case that the award was obtained fraudulently, without making him party to the alleged settlement, he has every right to challenge the same by way of filing a suit, in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Even in Kanithi Appala Suryanarayana Vs. Sri Kanithi Ganapathi Rao and Others, , the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a third party cannot seek cancellation of the compromise decree and it can establish its right in separate suit.

This Court, in CWP No. 23519 of 2011 Master Vikrant v. P.O. The Permanent Lok Adalat and others and CWP No. 23603 of 2011 Vikas Malhan v. The Presiding Officer, Permanent Lok Adalat and others, both decided by common judgment dated 13.2.2013, held that the petitioners would be at liberty to ventilate their grievances, if any, before the civil Court and no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction, to decide hotly and seriously disputed questions of fact. In these cases, the awards of the Lok Adalat were challenged by the petitioners before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and their suits were dismissed and instead of filing appeals against those judgments, they filed writ petitions and it was held that these are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Lok Adalat award is also based on compromise. The compromise, which forms basis of the impugned award, was not signed by the respondent, herein, as also, he was not made defendant in the suit.

Even in judgment passed by this Court in RSA No. 4105 of 2011 (Darshan Singh v. Kulwant Kaur and others,) decided on 19.1.2012, it was held that the present plaintiff-respondents were not party to the earlier litigation and, therefore, could not approach the same Court. In this view of the judgment, the respondent also could not approach the Lok Adalat, for he was not party to the award and, therefore, the only remedy available to him, was to file a suit, that has been filed by him. This suit has to be taken to logical conclusion and the petitioner is not going to be prejudiced, in any manner, as she can raise all her pleas before the trial Court.

To dismiss the suit of the respondent summarily, on the ground of its non-maintainability, at the instance of the petitioner, shall cause grave injustice to the respondent. Supposing, the suit of the respondent is dismissed on the ground of its maintainability and he approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for challenging the impugned award, in that situation, this Court shall hold that since he was not party to the impugned award, he has no right to seek cancellation, thereof, and he has to establish his right in a separate suit.

The trial Court, thus, rightly concluded that the respondent could challenge the award dated 15.2.2011, passed in Civil Suit No. 90-C of 2011 titled ''Arun and Shalu v. Kavita'', on the ground that he was not a party, therein, as also, that the same was obtained by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation. There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, passed by the trial Court, that is, hereby, upheld and affirmed. Resultantly, the civil revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed, sans prejudice to the merits of the main suit.