The compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat was not binding on a party who was not involved in the compromise, and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement were irrelevant for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Parties through their counsel.

2. The applicant before this Court, who is defendant No. 1 in civil suit filed by Mishribai has filed this revision against the order dated 14-9-2018 by which the Civil Judge, Class-I, Khategaon, District-Dewas has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the non-applicant No. 1 Mishribai has filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profit. It was stated by her that in another Civil Suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 60-A/2010, her husband was a party/defendant No. 1 and the death of her husband took place on 30-5-2012. She further stated that in spite of the fact that her husband was no more, a fraud was played upon and a judgment and decree was passed in Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014 even though her husband was a party.

4. The another important aspect of the case is that she was not a party in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was decided by Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014. In those circumstances, she filed civil suit claiming declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profit.

5. The present applicant before this Court, who is defendant No. 1 preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the dispute between the parties stands concluded on account of a compromise decree dated 13-12-2014, which was passed by the Lok Adalat and therefore the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit.

6. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri A. S. Garg has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Bhargavi Construction and anr. vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 4428. His contention is that the award of Lok Adalat can only be challenged by filing a writ petition invoking Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Reliance has further been placed upon another judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and anr. vs. Jalour Singh and ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660. It has been argued that the award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards section 21 of the Legal Aid Services Authority Act, 1987 and the same reads as under : –

(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, the Court free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). – 1[(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, the Court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).]”

(2) 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.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/Mishribai has stated categorically that Mishribai was not a party to the civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was decided by Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014 on account of a compromise and therefore, the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2014 is not binding upon Mishribai, the respondent No. 1.

9. He has also stated that Mishribai’s husband-Mojiram, who was defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 expired on 30-5-2012 and, therefore, the award was not passed with the consent of Mojiram/defendant No. 1 therein nor with the consent of Mishribai who was the wife of Mojiram and therefore, the award is certainly not at all bind