The award of Lok Adalat is final and binding, challengeable only through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, not in Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Revision is directed against an order dated 15 March 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jaysingpur, on an application (Exh.10) for rejection of the Misc. Civil Application No.87 of 2021 (main application) under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the premise that the main application was barred by law.

2. The background facts leading to the Revision Application can be summarized as under :

2.1 The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Respondent No.1 on 10 June 2007. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Respondent No.1.

2.2 In the wake of the marital discord, the Respondents allegedly harassed and ill-treated the applicant. Respondent No.1 allegedly contracted marriage with another woman during the subsistence of the marital bond between the applicant and Respondent No.1.

2.3 The applicant approached the Protection Officer appointed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005). The Protection Officer forwarded the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaysingpur, and, thereupon, Criminal Misc. Application No.15 of 2019 came to be registered under the provisions of DV Act, 2005.

2.4 In the meanwhile, the Applicant and Respondents explored the possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute. On 29 June 2019, the Applicant and Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed a joint pursis to place the said DV proceedings before the Lok Adalat. On 13 July 2019, before the National Lok Adalat, the Applicant and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed a Compromise Pursis (Exh. C). Lok Adalat Panel recorded the settlement in terms of the Compromise Pursis and the proceedings under DV Act i.e. PWDV Application No.15 of 2019, came to be disposed in accordance with the Compromise Memo (Exh. 9 therein).

2.5 Under the terms of the compromise, the Respondents agreed, inter alia, to give the residential house situated in Gat No.991 at Mauje Rendal to the applicant for her independent residence permanently, and that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the woman, with whom Respondent No.1 had allegedly contracted second marriage, were to reside in a shed abutting the house which was given to the applicant.

2.6 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred main application purportedly under Order XXIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code, before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, the Presiding Officer of which was the head of the Lok Adalat Panel contending, inter alia, that the consent order passed in PWDVA No.15 of 2019 was obtained by fraud, the applicant had obtained signatures of the Respondents on the Compromise pursis (Exh.8 therein) by practicing fraud and misrepresentation, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not present before the National Lok Adalat when the Compromise Memo was accepted by the Lok Adalat and the Compromise Memo was otherwise illegal and void on account of the fact that the agricultural land bearing Gat No.991 and the residential house therein, was the joint family property of Respondent No.3 and there was no partition by metes and bounds amongst Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the daughter of Respondent No.3. The other co-sharers had an undivided interest in the said property, and, therefore, it could not have been allotted to the applicant.

2.7 On 22 October 2021, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn., Jaysingpur, directed that the main application be registered as Misc. Civil Application, keeping open the issue of maintainability of the application.

2.8 The applicant appeared and filed an application (Exh.10) for rejection of the main application contending, inter alia, that once the matter is settled before, and award is passed by, the Lok Adalat, such an award can be challenged only by way of Writ Petition before the High Court and the award of the Lok Adalat cannot be assailed before the Civil Court.

2.9 The Respondents resisted the application asserting that the application was maintainable under the provisions