The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to pursue an appropriate remedy, such as a civil suit, for challenging a compromise decree, particularly on the grounds of fraud, and the permissibility of re-instituting a fresh suit.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Civil Suit No. 161/1 of 2014 came up before the National Lok Adalat, in its, sitting convened on 11.7.2015. On the aforesaid date, a compromise borne in Ext. CA, as stood recorded interse the parties in respect of this lis, whereupon they stood engaged, was, tendered by the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, before a Bench of the National Lok Adalat. Ext. CA was accepted by both the contesting parties, whereupon, on anvil thereof, the Bench of the National Lok Adalat proceeded to decree the plaintiffs’ suit. Subsequently, an application cast under the provisions of 151, CPC was filed before the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Solan. The application aforesaid held averments, that the purported executant of the General Power of Attorney, not, constituting one Shri Gaurav Thakur as his attorney, for his making any settlement, in respect of the lis, before the Bench of the National Lok Adalat. Hence, a prayer was made that the award/decree pronounced by the Lok Adalat be quashed and set aside.

2. The aforesaid averment is founded upon the award/decree of the National Lok Adalat, being obtained by fraud exercised by the purported GPA, of, one Teja Singh, thereupon both the compromise deed, besides the decree anvilled thereon, as recorded by the Bench of the National Lok Adalat, were, strived to be set aside. Under a pronouncement borne in Ext. P-1, the aforesaid endeavour was accepted by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). The aggrieved therefrom rear a challenge thereto, before this Court.

3. Any decree/award pronounced by “Lok Adalat”, is, made under the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, the relevant provision whereof are extracted hereinafter:-

“Award of Lok Adalat- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the Court-fee paid in such cases shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-Fees Act, 1870.

(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and not appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. Therein conclusivity is imputed to award(s) pronounced, by the Lok Adalat concerned, also they are rendered unamenable to any challenge before any Court, thereupon it was not judicially sagacious for the Civil Judge (Junior Division), to, under Ext. P1 hence proceed to quash and set aside the impugned award pronounced by a Bench of the National Lok Adalat. Consequently, the order pronounced in Ext.P-1, is vitiated by an apparent taint of its falling outside the jurisdiction/domain of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)”.

4. Be that as it may, since, an onslaught was laid to the validity(s) of the decree rendered by the Bench of the National Lok Adalat, visibly on the trite ground(s) of its emanating, from, the reasons set forth in the application cast under Section 151 CPC, hence fraud being practiced upon it, thereupon despite statutory imputation of conclusivity to the awards recorded by Bench(s) of Lok Adalat(s), the aforesaid onslaught when impinges upon the vires of the decree, rather was hence espousable through a Civil suit constituted before the Court concerned, than through an inapt concert, for its reversal being made vis-à-vis an application cast before the trial Court under the provisions of Section 151 CPC. Even though, the aggrieved had filed an apposite civil Suit No. 161/1 of 2014 before the Civil Court concerned, yet given the pendency of the application, cast under the provisions of Section 151 of CPC, application whereof begot recording of an affirmative decision thereon, thereupon the learned counsel proceeded to make a statement seeking permission to withdraw the civil suit, permission whereof stood accorded. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff appears t