Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Sunanda, D/o. Madhavan – Appellant
Versus
Sundaran, S/o. Gopalakrishnan – Respondent
OP(C).No.3318 of 2017(O)
Decided on : 26-06-2020
Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction - National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 - Clause (2), Clause (5), and Clause (6) of Regulation No.17 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendants in a suit, challenged an award passed by the Lok Adalat, claiming they were not aware of the award and were not signatories to it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Lok Adalat had no power to act upon a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, and the award was not passed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the award was set aside, and the Sub Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
Issues: Validity of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to act upon a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The members of the Lok Adalat can sign the award only after the parties put their signature or affix their thumb impression on the award. The settlement or agreement must be arrived at by the parties before the members of the Lok Adalat, and the parties must sign the award after understanding the terms of the settlement.
Final Decision: The Original Petition stands allowed, and the award passed by the Lok Adalat stands quashed. The Sub Court concerned is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Ext.P3 award dated 14.01.2011 in O.S.No.1766 of 2010 of Sub-Court, Thrissur passed by the Lok Adalat his under challenge in this original petition.
2. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondent.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
4. The petitioners are the defendants in the above said suit. The petitioners would contend that they were not aware of Ext.P3 award passed by the Lok Adalat and that they were not signatories to the said award and hence, the said award cannot be sustained.
5. Ext.P3 award would show that the matter was settled as per the compromise petition filed by the parties, which was attached to the award. The compromise petition attached to the said award is a petition filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Lok Adalat treated the said petition as a compromise petition and passed the award.
6. At the outset, it has to be noted that the Lok Adalat has no power to act upon a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Civil Court alone has the power to deal with such compromise petition. The civil court will record the composition and pass compromise decree in accordance with law, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit.
7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether it is necessary that all the parties must sign the Award or not.
8. For answering the said question, it is necessary to read Clause (2), Clause (5) and Clause (6) of Regulation No.17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 (for short 'the Act'), which can be extracted hereunder:-
(2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award (see a specimen at Appendix-1). Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local Courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of Court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation 20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award-before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.
(3) ….. …... …... …... …....
(4)….. …... …... …... …....
(5) Members of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures.
(a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and
(b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence.
(6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing-signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc..
(7) …. …... ….... …... …..
(8) …. …... ….. ….... …....”
9. Clause (2) of Regulation No.17 of the Act would make it clear that the members of the Lok Adalat can sign the award only after the parties putting their signature or affixing their thumb impression on the award. When the parties sign and the members sign, it becomes an award. It further appears from Clause (2) that if the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the agreement/ Award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.
10. It is clear from Clause (5) that the members of the Lok Adalat must ensure that the parties sign the agreement only after fully
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
