D. P. S. CHAUHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE Punjab National Bank filed a suit (C. S. No. 15-A/87), in the Court of Additional District Judge, Seoni, against six defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,00,949. 50 paise on account of loan advanced to them on 13-10-1980.

( 2 ) A written statement was filed by the defendants denying the plaint allegations. However, on 17-4-1988 the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The plaintiff and the defendants agreed to the reference on specific condition that the entire claim be decreed and in regard to the interest pendente lite and instalments, the matter was left to the discretion of the Lok Adalat. The statement of Manager of the plaintiff-Bank K. K. Awasthi (P. W. 1) was recorded, who stated that the Bank would agree with the compromise provided the entire claim is decreed with pendente lite interest. The compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat contains the signature of Shri K. K. Awasthi, Bank Manager. Consequent upon the compromise, the Additional District Judge, Seoni passed an order on 17-4-1988 and in para 10 of the order, the following direction was passed, which is as extracted below :the Additional District Judge also directed that the plaintiff was entitled for refund of Court-fee amount to the tune of Rs. 8240/- in accordance with provisions of Sec. 2 (1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, from the State Government. This order/ decree is a subject matter of challenge at the behest of the Bank by means of this First Appeal filed under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that firstly, the appellant/ plaintiff never agreed for instalment and secondly the claim though decreed in full the trial Court granted instalment of Rs. 6000/- every half yearly reducing the interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 10% per annum and this grant of lesser rate of interest is bad.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a compromise decree and the compromise was effected before the statutory body of Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). it is a central legislation of a special character. it provides that the Lok Adalat has a jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before the Court or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court for which Lok Adalat is organised. Sec. 20 (3) of the Act provides that where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-sec. (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-sec. (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. Sec. 21 deals with the award of Lok Adalat and it says that "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 Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870. It further says that every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. "

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Sec. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under :"21. Award of Lok Adalat : (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document