2015 Supreme(Kar) 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N. Kumar, J.
Govardhana and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Appi and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 23235/2012 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 28.04.2015

Headnote:LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - Section 19(5): [N. Kumar, J] Award passed on the basis of compromise petition signed by Advocate on behalf of party -Held, Compromise or settlement between the parties is a sine qua non for the Lok Adalath to resolve the dispute between the parties. In other words, the Lok Adalath has no adjudicatory function. Only when the parties to the lis agree to compromise or settle the dispute, the case or the matter referred to the Lok Adalath can be disposed of in accordance with such terms of compromise or settlement. It presupposes that the parties to the lis should appear before the Lok Adalath and agree to the compromise or settlement. It is not a proceeding before the Court.. The Lok Adalath is not a Court as defined under the Act or under the CPC. Order 3 of CPC authorizes a recognized agent or a pleader to represent a party to a proceeding only before the Court. Therefore, in the Lok Adalath, the compromise or settlement should be between the parties. If the parties have engaged a Counsel to appear for them before the Court, then, certainly that Counsel can appear before the Lok Adalath and assist the parties to arrive at a compromise and settlement. Once a settlement is reduced into writing, it is for the parties to the lis to affix their signatures in token of their acceptance to the terms of the compromise or settlement. Thereafter, the Counsel can affix his signature. But, if the parties do not affix their signatures to the compromise petition or the settlement, the Counsel representing the parties before the Court, though participated in the Lok Adalath and assisted the parties in arriving at a settlement, has no authority to enter into a compromise so as to bind his party. If the party’s consent or acceptance to the compromise is not evidenced because of absence of his signature to a compromise petition or settlement, it only shows that he has not arrived at a compromise or settlement with the opposite party.

        In the instant case the two plaintiffs have not signed but their Advocate has signed. Defendants 6, 7(a) and (b) who were placed exparte have also not singed.

        In the Lok Adalath, the parties have to come face to face, sit together and resolve the dispute with the assistance of the Counsel and the members of the Lok Adalath. If the parties are not coming together, the Advocates for the parties cannot force compromise upon them and the Lok Adalath cannot accept such compromise. The manner in which compromise is accepted by Lok Adalath in this case only shows lakc of application of mind by the members of the Lok Adalat and also the learned members of the Bar who have affixed their signatures to the compromise petition. When a person approaches the Court for relief contending that injustice has been done to him, referring the matter to the Lok Adalath and allowing the suit to be compromised or settled in the absence of such party would be travesty of justice. No doubt, the cases have to be speedily decided. Lok Adalath is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which is now accepted for speedy disposal of the case. But, in the anxiety to have a speedy disposal, interest of justice should not be sacrificed. Justice is to be done to the parties by a settlement or compromise. If the parties do not accept the compromise or settlement, sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 20 contemplate, Lokadalath shall advise the parties to seek remedy in a Court and record of the case be returned to the Court which referred the matter to Lok Adalath. Thereafter, the Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage where it was before such reference was made under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act. This is the mandate of law. Impugned Order of Lok Adalat set aside. Original suit is restored to its file. Trial Court was directed to proceed with suit from stage where it was referred to Lok Adalat.

       LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - Section 20 & Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), Order 3, Rule 2: [N. Kumar, J] Lok Adalat is not a Court and has no adjudicatory function. Consent of both parties evidenced by their signature to compromise petition is a condition precedent for any lawful order to be passed by Lok Adalat, so as to bind parties. Counsel cannot affix his signature. Signatures of counsel alone on compromise petition cannot bind parties to lis.