Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Kochar, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kochar, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Aman Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Saxena, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv Mr. Nr Shwetabh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Malik Arjun Khare, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv. Mr. Boudhik Garg, Adv. Mr. Shashank S Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Atharva Joshi, Adv. Ms. Kavya Verma, Adv. Mr. Pallav Sishodiya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Ms. Yasha Goyal, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Hardeep, Adv. Mr. Deepak Bahl, Adv.

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 (!) .