IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Sadanand Paswan - Appellant
Vs.
Kabita Devi, wife of Late Rajgir Paswan - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 400 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21 - Execution of Lok Adalat award - The court held that the award of Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court and is executable, despite the non-disclosure of the correct provision of law in the application. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 11)
(B) Legal principles - Non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the court has the power to pass such an order. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to execute an award from a Lok Adalat regarding peaceful possession, which was dismissed by the lower court for lack of proper legal citation.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was set aside, affirming the award's executability under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
Issues: Whether the Lok Adalat award is executable despite the incorrect citation of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Lok Adalat's award is a decree and executable, regardless of procedural missteps in the application.
Result: The impugned order dated 28.11.2022 is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Notices upon the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have been validly served.
2. This matter was adjourned on 10.03.2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 in spite of that nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and in view of that this petition is being heard in absence of opposite party Nos.1 to 3.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – I, Sahibganj, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the Civil Misc. Case No.06 of 2018 for execution of Award dated 08.07.2017 passed in Mediation Case No.165 of 2017 by Lok Adalat.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are plaintiff in Title Suit No.52 of 2007 which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners by the learned Court of Sub-Judge – III, Sahibganj. He submits that the respondents/defendants filed the Title Appeal No.48 of 2009 against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.52 of 2007 which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011. He submits that the petitioners had filed Execution Case No.07 of 2016 which was pending before the learned Court of Sr. Civil Judge-I, Sahibganj. He submits that the respondents preferred Second Appeal before this Court and status of second appeal is not known. The Execution Case No.07 of 2016 was referred to Mediator for resolving the dispute and the case before Mediator was registered as Mediation Case No.165 of 2017 and the parties amicably resolved their dispute on 07.07.2017. The report was referred to Lok Adalat and accordingly an award was passed by the Lok Adalat, Sahibganj on 08.07.2017 contained in Annexure-1. He submits that the suit was with regard to handover of peaceful possession and the compromise has reached to the effect that the peaceful possession in terms of the compromise will be provided. However, the award was not complied and in view of that the Civil Miscellaneous Case No.06 of 2018 was filed. He submits that the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the same by order dated 28.11.2022 on the ground that the provision of law is not disclosed. He submits that the award was already there of the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise and in view of that in light of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act the said award is executable in spite of that the learned Court has passed the said order. He further submits that if the correct provision of law was not mentioned due to wrong advice that cannot be a ground of rejecting the petition. He submits in view of that this petition has been filed and that order may kindly be set aside.
5. The Court has perused the materials on record and finds that admittedly the suit was instituted legally which was decided in favour of the petitioners. Title Appeal No.48 of 2009 was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011 and the Execution Case No.07 of 2016 was filed which was pending. Second appeal was preferred by the respondents, however the status of second appeal is not known. In the meantime, the execution case was sent for mediation and pursuant to mediation, the case before Mediator was registered as Mediation Case No.165 of 2017. Admittedly, the compromise was reached between the parties pursuant to that the Lok Adalat has passed the compromise Award dated 08.07.2017 and in this background, the miscellaneous case was filed. By the impugned order, the learned Court has dismissed the said miscellaneous case only on the ground that the correct provision of law is not disclosed.
6. It is well settled that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.
7. In light of Section 21 of Legal Service Authority Act, the award of Lok Adalat is a decree which can be executed.
8. With the object of
The award of a Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court and is executable, regardless of incorrect legal citations in the application.
Objection to execution of decree – Statutory finality attached to Lok Adalat award leaves no room for appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree – Award may be executed a....
Lok Adalat Award – Fine Levy Warrant - For recovery of the fine by a criminal Court, the enabling provision is Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court passing the order of se....
Award passed in Lok Adalat concerning criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is executable by Civil Court in case of default committed by judgment debtor.
The court established that a valid reference to Lok Adalat is mandatory for its jurisdiction, and failure to comply with this requirement invalidates any award made.
Lok Adalat awards under Section 22-E are final and binding; challenges barred by laches after unexplained delay.
A writ petition challenging a compromise decree entered before Lok Adalat by non-impleaded necessary parties is maintainable due to allegations of fraud and procedural irregularity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.