An award by a Lok Adalat requires explicit consent from all parties involved; absence of such consent renders the award invalid and unenforceable.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by assailing impugned award dated 14.5.2022 passed by National Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021.

2. The petitioner herein was defendant No.7 in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021 on the files of learned Civil Judge,Bilaspur, H.P. Respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff. In addition, the husband and son of petitioner herein were defendants No.1 and 6, respectively, in above noted suit, besides other co-defendants.

3. The parties herein shall be referred to by the same status as they held in Civil Suit before the learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur.

4. On 12.3.2022, the plaintiff had made a statement on oath during the course of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021 before learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur that she had entered into a written compromise with the defendants. The compromise deed was placed on record as Ext. CA. Plaintiff had identified her thumb impression Ext. CB on compromise deed Ext. CA. The plaintiff had also stated that Ext. CA was signed by the witnesses and the Advocates representing the defendants. She prayed for the decision on the suit on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021 was referred to National Lok Adalat by learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur.

5. On 14.5.2022, the National Lok Adalat was held. The order dated 14.5.2022 passed by the National Lok Adalat reveals that the parties were not present before the National Lok Adalat. However, they were represented through their respective counsels, whose presence was duly recorded. Consequently, the impugned award came to be passed whereby Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021 was disposed of in terms of compromise Ext. CA. It was also recorded that the statements made before the National Lok Adalat along with compromise deed Ext. CA s hall form part of the award.

6. Defendant No.7 has raised the grievance, by way of instant petition, that she had not signed any compromise and had also not made any statement either before the National Lok Adalat or any other forum so as to accord her consent for any amicable settlement, therefore, the award dated 14.5.2022 passed by National Lok Adalat was invalid and not binding on her rights.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

8. It is evident from the record that on 14.5.2022, neither the parties were present before the National Lok Adalat nor their statements were recorded. The impugned award, to the extent of stating factum of recording of statements of parties before Lok Adalat, is contrary to the record.

9. The fact of the matter is that Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021 was pending before learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur. Defendants 1, 6 and 7 i.e. the husband and son of petitioner and petitioner herself were represented by Sh.Sarpal Thakur, Advocate.

10. It was during the course of the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 2021 that on 12.3.2022, compromise deed Ext. CA was presented before learned Senior Civil Judge, Bilaspur and the statement of plaintiff on oath was recorded. A copy of document Ext.CA i.e. the compromise deed has also been placed on record of instant petition which finds place at pages 69 to 72 of the paper book. Evidently, it bears the signature of Sh. Hari Ram, defendant No.1 and Sh. Naresh Thakur, defendant No.6. The signature or thumb impression of defendant No.7 are not available on this document. However, Sh. Sarpal Singh Thakur has appended his signatures as counsel for defendants No.1, 6 and 7.

11. It is