IMPORTANT POINT
The Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction by making a non-party to the original suit a party and failing to provide a fair hearing, violating the Legal Services Authority Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Marli Vankung, J.)

Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Sr. counsel for respondent No. 3, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli and Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 remain unrepresented though notice was served upon them by dasti mode as reflected in the order dated 20.09.2022.

2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside and quashing the Award dated 26.10.2019 passed by the Lok Adalat, Aizawl District Legal Service Authority under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 in connection with LA case No. 344 of 2019.

3. Mr. Lalremtluanga, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Lok Adalat Award dated 26.10.2019 is liable to be set aside, on the grounds that the Civil Suit No. 6/2009 was referred to Lok Adalat by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aizawl, wherein the instant petitioner was not made a party. The Lok Adalat had acted beyond its powers conferred under sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, in making the award against the petitioner, whereas she was not a party to the dispute in Civil Suit No. 6/2009.He also submitted that the summons were issued to her through the OC Bawngkawn, Aizawl and therefore, she was compelled to appear before the Lok Adalat under threat and coercion by the police. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was also made to sign on the impugned award under threat, whereby, she did not fully understand the terms of the impugned Lok Adalat Award nor did she understand its full implication when she was made to put her signature on the award. The learned counsel thus submitted that this matter should be referred back to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior division) for disposal on merits, wherein, before the case was referred to Lok Adalat, evidence and hearing in the case was completed and the Civil Suit No. 6/2009 was reserved for judgment by the Civil Judge (Senior division).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also explained that a copy of the impugned Lok Adalat award was delivered to the petitioner only on 08.03.2022 and therefore, there was a delay in filing the instant Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Neihkimi Vs H. Thangseia in CRP No. 4/2020 dated 23.06.2021, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court, had set aside the award passed by Lok Adalat on finding that the Lok Adalat had exercised power beyond its jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case also, the Lok Adalat had exercised its power beyond its jurisdiction by making the petitioner a party and wherein she was made put her signature on the impugned Award under threat and coercion.

6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand submitted that the impugned award is dated 26.10.2019, however, the instant petitioner has approached this Court only on 05.04.2022 thus there was a delay of almost 3 years in approaching this Court. The learned Sr. counsel submitted that even though there is no prescribed limitation period under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there should be a satisfactory explanation given for the said delay. The learned Senior counsel has relied on the case of Bithika Mazumdar & Anr. Vs. Sagan Pal &Ors., reported in (2017) 2 SCC 748 (para 4).

He further submitted that the limited grounds for setting aside an award made in the Lok Adalat is, if it is found that there is a manifest miscarriage of justice, which is not so in the instant case.

7. The learned Sr. counsel also submitted that, under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, Lok Adalat has the power to summon and enforce attendance of witness and examine thereof, and also have the power to specify its own procedure for the determination of any d