IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

The Court made the following: ORDER The judgment debtor filed the above revision against the order dated 02.07.2024 in E.P.No.29 of 2022 in C.C.No.1041 of 2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The respondent-decree holder filed C.C.No.1041 of 2016 (private complaint) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner-judgment debtor. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat vide Lok Adalat Case No.186 of 2022 organized by the District Legal Services Authority, Srikakulam. An award was passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The award reads thus:—

“The complainant and the accused appeared before Lok Adalat along with their counsels. After negotiations and conciliation, a compromise has been arrived between both the parties with the following terms:—

i) that the accused agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the complainant towards full and final settlement and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) today and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and fifty thousand only) in nine (9) installments @ Rs.50,000/- each on or before 25th of every month till the discharge of total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the complainant agreed to receive the same;

ii) that in case of default in payment of the above said amount in any installment, the complainant is at liberty to execute the award for recovery of the amount with interest @ 24% from the date of award till the date of realization:

The terms of compromise are read over and explained to both parties in Telugu and they admitted them to be true and correct. Accordingly, recording the above terms of compromise, Award is passed acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 f the same Act.”

3. The decree-holder filed E.P.No.39 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam under Order XXI Rules 37 & 38 of CPC to commit the judgment debtor to the civil prison. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the judgment debtor failed to honour the award passed by the Lok Adalat and, as such, committed default in payment of the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.

4. The judgment debtor filed a counter and contended that after the Lok Adalat Award, the decree-holder neither demanded nor issued any notice to the judgment debtor demanding the E.P. amount. The judgment debtor never refused to pay the award amount. He is ready to pay the amount after a lapse of some time.

5. The executing Court conducted an enquiry. The decree-holder examined himself as PW.1 and marked the Award copy as Ex.P1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the judgment debtor.

6. The executing Court recorded a finding that the judgment debtor has movable and immovable properties and had the means to pay the amount, however, intentionally avoided paying the amount. The executing Court allowed the petition and ordered the judgment debtor to be sent to civil prison for 3 months on the failure of the judgment debtor to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. Initially, while ordering notice, this Court granted an order on 04.12.2024 subject to payment of 50% of the decretal amount within two weeks. However, the amount was not paid. Since the amount was not paid, because of the condition, the stay stands rescinded.

8. Sri Harsha, learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the award passed in Lok Adalat concerning a criminal case and hence, the E.P. filed by the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 37, 38 of CPC is not maintainable. He would also submit that the decree-holder ought to have availed remedy under Section 421 of Cr.P.C.

9. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the aw