A non-party to a compromise decree in Lok Adalat cannot challenge it through regular appeal procedures; specific legal avenues must be pursued instead.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner(Respondent No.1 in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006) praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure- 1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Cuttack.

2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Party No.1(Prabhat Kumar Swain) in this revision being the appellant had filed the 1^st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 under Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908 in the court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack praying for setting aside the compromise decree on the ground of fraud passed in a suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993 in the court of learned Sub-judge, 1^st Court, Cuttack on dated 21.03.1993 (Annexure-4) in a Lok Adalat.

During the pendency of that 1^st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006, the Respondent No.1 in that 1st appeal(petitioner in this revision) filed a petition on dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure-6) praying for rejection/dismissal of the 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 on the ground of its maintainability stating that, the compromise decree passed on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993 in the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by preferring an appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 under Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908 due to bar contained in Section 21 (2) of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for which, the said 1^st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected, because, the same is not maintainable/entertainable under law.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned District Judge, Cuttack rejected to the petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the Respondent No.1 of that 1^st appeal vie RFA No.40 of 2006 on dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) relying upon the decision of this Court between Smt. Gourimani @ Umamani Devi and others vrs. Narayan Tripathy and others : reported in 2016(I) CLR-398 assigning the reasons that,

“as the appellant in the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 was not a party in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993, for which, he is not precluded under law to challenge the compromise decree passed in that suit in the Lok Adalat on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) by preferring an appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006.”

4. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1), i.e., to the rejection of the petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the petitioner for rejection of the RFA No.40 of 2006, he (petitioner in this revision) challenged the same by filing this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 against the appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006 arraying him as Opposite Party No.1 and also arraying others as proforma Opposite Parties praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.40 of 2006.

5. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in RFA No.40 of 2006) and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1(appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006).

6. In order to assail the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court between Bharvagi Constructions and another vrs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others : reported in 2017(II) CLR (S.C.)-825.

7. The legal procedures/forums for challenging a compromise decree passed in a Lok Afdalat like the impugned compromise decree passed on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) in T.S. No.110 of 19