IMPORTANT POINT
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 award on the ground of fraud.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dtd. 31/10/2022, dismissing petition in I.A.No.195 of 2019 in O.S.No.237 of 2018 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.

2. Heard Ms. Ganta Sridevi, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff.

3. The facts leading to filing of this revision petition, briefly stated, are as follows: The parties to the suit in O.S.No.237 of 2018 were referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement, and thereby, an award was passed on 3/7/2015 in Case No.782 of 2015. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit O.S.No.237 of 2018 to declare that the award, dtd. 3/7/2015, passed by the Lok Adalat, Vijayawada, in case No.782 of 2015 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff on the ground of fraud.

4. At the time of filing the suit, on the objection raised by the office, the plaintiff submitted a decision of the High Court of A.P. in Rambha Narayana Murthy Vs Nimmagadda Eswara Venkata Narasimha Rao,2017(2) ALT 443 (S.B.). On being satisfied about the legal proposition, the suit was registered.

5. The defendant filed I.A.No.195 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint stating that civil suit is not maintainable to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The petition was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter and denying the averments. After hearing both parties, the petition was dismissed observing that on a bare reading of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the ground raised by the petitioner to reject the plaint, questioning the Lok Adalat Award is not shown or covered and that the remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere.

6. Having aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that as per Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, if a suit is not in accordance with 'law', the plaint is to be rejected and that the word 'law' includes a decision passed by the constitutional courts, and therefore, the observation of the trial Court that Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not apply is erroneous. In this regard, she further submitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions and another Vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others,(2018) 13 SCC 480. when an award passed by the Lok Adalat is to be challenged on the ground of fraud, the only remedy available is to file a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and not by a separate suit, and therefore, within the meaning of 'law' under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the suit in the present case is not maintainable.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that when an award is challenged on the ground of fraud which requires a detailed trial and involve voluminous evidence, a civil suit would lie and in support of his contentions, he placed reliance on decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Atluru Chandra Sekhara Rao v. Atluru Mahesh Babu and others, 2019 (3) ALT 119 # AIR 2019 AP 7. and Iragadindla Ramachandrudu v. The Lok Adalath Bench,W.P.Nos.14433 of 2020 &.13268 of 2020, dtd. 12/9/2023 (APHC). wherein by relying on the observation of the earlier decision of this High Court in Batchu Subba Lakshmi & others v. Sannidhi Srinivasulu & others, 2010 (1) ALD 277 (D.B). it was held that a third party to the Lok Adalat award can file a civil suit on the ground of award being vitiated by fraud. It was held at paragraph Nos.12, 13 & 17 as follows:

"12) Be that as it may, upon establishing the fact that he is the grandson of Iragadindla Chinna Chinnanna, when he only claims 1/3rd share in the said property as a heir of one of the land holders, he also, if he feels aggrieved by the award on the ground of any