Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Dilip Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13798 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 27806 of 2023)
Decided On : 18-11-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 101 read with Section 151 – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 21 and 22E – Objection to execution of decree – Statutory finality attached to Lok Adalat award leaves no room for appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree – Award may be executed as a decree, but its validity cannot be reopened through ordinary civil suit or by treating some other civil proceeding as a vehicle for setting it aside – Only recognised avenue of challenge is Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature – Once decree which is sought to be executed is one that merely embodies Lok Adalat award under LSA Act, role of Executing Court is confined to giving effect to that award in terms of execution – It has no authority to annul or set aside award itself, or decree drawn in its terms, nor can it sit in judgment over validity of compromise on which Lok Adalat proceeded – Treating filing of objections in such execution as an “efficacious alternative remedy” for challenging award is inconsistent with statutory scheme. (Paras 10 and 11)
(B) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 21 and 22E – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 – Objection to execution of decree – In specific context of a decree that reflects a Lok Adalat award, those provisions enable Executing Court to address questions which arise incidentally in course of working out execution, such as whether and to what extent decree can be enforced against a particular person in possession and in what manner – They do not authorise Executing Court, under guise of adjudicating resistance, obstruction or dispossession, to reopen settlement which resulted in award, to examine validity of award as such, or to declare that decree based upon it is void – Decree in such a case owes its force not merely to CPC but to special statute which deems award to be a decree only for limited purpose of execution – Stipulation that an award “shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding” is a prohibitory clause which reinforces bar against collateral civil challenges to a Lok Adalat award – It does not create a separate class of civil remedies in favour of persons who were not parties before Lok Adalat, nor does it enlarge jurisdiction of Executing Court to set aside or invalidate such an award at instance of a third party – Statutory structure is same whether aggrieved person is a party to award or is a third party who claims to be affected by it – In either case, if validity of award is to be examined at all, it is to be tested in writ proceedings before High Court and not by expanding scope of execution or by encouraging independent civil suits. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
The central question is whether, in the facts of the present case, High Court was justified in declining to entertain appellant’s challenge to the Lok Adalat decree on the ground that he had already filed objections before the Executing Court.
Findings of Court:
Writ petition filed by appellant to assail Lok Adalat decree dated 14.05.2022 was maintainable and that the High Court was not justified in declining to examine it on the ground of an alleged alternative remedy in execution. The impugned judgments rest on an incorrect understanding of the scope of Section 22E of the LSA Act, of the reach of Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 CPC with respect to Lok Adalat awards and of the law declared by Supreme Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal judgment emphasizes that objections to the execution of a decree based on a Lok Adalat award are limited in scope due to the statutory finality attached to such awards. The award, once passed, is deemed a decree for the purpose of execution, but its validity cannot be challenged through ordinary civil suits or civil proceedings aimed at setting aside the award. The only recognized avenue for challenging the award is through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature (!) (!) .
The Court clarifies that the role of the executing court is confined to implementing the award as a decree, without the authority to annul or question the award itself or the validity of the settlement on which it was based (!) . Questions of right, title, and interest, including allegations of fraud, are to be addressed within the scope of the execution proceedings only incidentally and cannot serve as grounds to reopen or invalidate the award or decree (!) .
Furthermore, the statutory provisions governing Lok Adalat awards explicitly prohibit calling such awards into question in any original suit, application, or execution proceeding, reinforcing their finality and binding nature (!) (!) . Challenges to Lok Adalat awards must be made through a writ petition in the High Court, based on limited grounds such as jurisdictional errors or fraud, and not through civil suits or civil proceedings (!) .
In the context of a third-party challenge, the Court holds that the remedies available are limited. Filing objections in execution proceedings is primarily a defensive measure to prevent wrongful dispossession and does not constitute an alternative or parallel remedy to a writ petition challenging the award's validity (!) (!) . The statutory scheme does not permit the execution court to revisit or examine the validity of the award beyond incidental questions related to enforcement (!) .
The Court also notes that the objections filed by the appellant in the execution proceedings were aimed at preserving possession and do not amount to an election of remedy that bars a writ challenge. Such objections cannot be treated as a substitute for the statutory remedy of a writ petition, especially when allegations of fraud and collusion are involved (!) .
Ultimately, the Court concludes that the High Court erred in declining to entertain the appellant’s challenge to the Lok Adalat decree on the ground that objections had already been filed in the execution proceedings. The appeal is allowed, and the matter is remanded for a fresh hearing on its merits. The previous judgments are set aside, and the appellant is directed to withdraw the objections filed in the execution case within a specified timeframe (!) (!) .
The Court explicitly states that it has not examined the factual allegations of fraud, collusion, or abuse of process, leaving those issues open for consideration by the High Court upon remand (!) . Until the High Court makes a final determination, the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the property, ensuring the preservation of the subject matter of the dispute (!) .
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2023. By the said judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22367 of 2022. The writ petition had called in question a compromise decree dated 14.05.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat, Jabalpur in R.C.S. No. 229-A of 2022 and the consequential execution proceedings in Execution Case No. EX- A/40/2022, but was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had already invoked the remedy of objections before the Executing Court.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. The appellant is a purchaser of certain immovable property situated at Jabalpur. The said property originally belonged to one Smt. Siya Bai. On 29.11.2008, a power of attorney in respect of the property was executed in favour of respondent No. 3, who is described in the civil proceedings as Virendra Patel. However, on 21.01.2009, an agreement to sell in respect of the property was executed between respondent No. 3 on the one hand and respondents No. 1 and 2, Rakesh Gupta and Neeraj Jain, on the other.
3.2. On the basis of the said power of attorney, a sale deed in favour of one Ganga Prasad Kurariya was thereafter executed on 12.06.2009. Disputes arose between Smt. Siya Bai and the said purchaser. Smt. Siya Bai instituted Civil Suit No. 12-A of 2013 for a declaration that the power of attorney dated 29.11.2008 and the sale deed dated 12.06.2009 were null and void. Another suit was filed by Ganga Prasad Kurariya and certain members of his family seeking permanent injunction against Smt. Siya Bai in respect of the same property.
3.3. In relation to the same transaction, an FIR bearing No. 243 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Barela at the instance of Smt. Siya Bai and her husband Shri Bhagwan Patel. A police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[CrPC] was submitted on 09.01.2018 alleging that respondent No. 3 had impersonated as son and successor of Smt. Siya Bai and had used fabricated documents, including the power of attorney dated 29.11.2008, to deal with the property.
3.4. After the demise of Smt. Siya Bai, her husband Shri Bhagwan Patel, asserting himself to be her sole surviving heir, executed a registered sale deed on 17.02.2016 in favour of the appellant’s proprietary concern, M/s Rajul Builders, for a stated consideration of about Rupees Four Crores and Twenty Lakhs. According to the appellant, possession of the property was simultaneously delivered and has continued with him since then.
3.5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 claim rights under the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2009 said to have been executed by respondent No. 3 in their favour. On the basis of that agreement, they instituted a suit for specific performance being R.C.S. No. 229- A of 2022 before the Court of the Civil Judge at Jabalpur against respondent No. 3 alone. The appellant and the original owner’s heirs were not impleaded as parties to that suit.
3.6. In the said suit, a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) was filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant stating that the dispute had been compromised. The statements of the parties were recorded and the compromise was verified. The matter was thereafter placed before the Lok Adalat at Jabalpur.
3.7. On 14.05.2022, the Lok Adalat passed an award in terms of the compromise in R.C.S. No. 229-A of 2022 and a decree for specific performance was drawn.
3.8. On the strength of the decree dated 14.05.2022, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 on 22.07.2022 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur, purporting to convey the same property. Respondents No. 1 and 2 then initiated execution proceedings being Execution Case No. E
Objection to execution of decree – Statutory finality attached to Lok Adalat award leaves no room for appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree – Award may be executed a....
The court established that a valid reference to Lok Adalat is mandatory for its jurisdiction, and failure to comply with this requirement invalidates any award made.
A writ petition challenging a compromise decree entered before Lok Adalat by non-impleaded necessary parties is maintainable due to allegations of fraud and procedural irregularity.
A Lok Adalat award can be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on limited grounds, and a civil suit is not maintainable to challenge a Lok Adalat aw....
A Lok Adalat award is binding when signed by parties, challenges must follow strict procedural paths under Articles 226/227, and the Execution Court's failure to address preliminary objections is an ....
Point of Law : Challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very....
The award of Lok Adalat is final and binding, challengeable only through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, not in Civil Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
