Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Pinki Devi @ Asha Devi – Petitioner
versus
Arbind Kumar Gupta – Opp. Party
Civil Revision No.17 of 2025 With
C.M.P. No.592 of 2025
Decided on 24.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the Sole O.P.:Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory or judicial function – Their functions relate purely to conciliation – Permanent Lok Adalat is having no jurisdiction to decide any property matter.
Headnote:
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 22-A – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 13 – Power of Permanent Lok Adalat – Only public utility service can be subject matter before Permanent Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory or judicial function – Their functions relate purely to conciliation – Lok Adalat determines reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between parties and puts it seal of confirmation by making award in terms of compromise – If any party wants to challenge award based on settlement, same can be examined in a writ petition under Article 226 and / or 227 on a very limited ground – Permanent Lok Adalat is having no jurisdiction in respect of the matter, which is pending in court – If any illegality has been committed by any court, that illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated – Permanent Lok Adalat is having no jurisdiction to decide any property matter – Judgment passed by Permanent Lok Adalat set-aside and Title Suit restored to its original file. (Paras 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 32)
JUDGMENT
Both these petitions have been assigned to this Bench and that is how these matters have been listed before this Court.
2. CMP No.592 of 2025 has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.02.2003 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi, in P.L.A. No. 270 of 2001, by which it has passed a compromise decree with respect of suit for Specific Performance of Contract being (Title Suit No. 12 of 2001) and thereafter has drawn the decree dated 04.03.2003.
3. Civil Revision No.17 of 2025 has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranchi, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2020, in terms of which the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No. 35 of 2020.
4. Mr. Bibhas Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the sole opposite party herein has initially instituted Title Suit No.12 of 2001 under Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act against the father of the present petitioner namely late Laxmi Narayan Sahu praying, inter alia, for the reliefs as follows:—
a) The defendant may be directed to execute and register sale deed in respect of the suit property which has been more fully described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint after receiving balance consideration from the plaintiff and failing which the learned Trial Court may be pleased to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff of the suit property after depositing the balance consideration money by the plaintiff in court and the plaintiff may be put in Khas Physical Possession through the process of the court if the learned Court found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit premises.
b) The alternative relief may be granted as money decree for a sum of Rs.6,19,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Nineteen Thousand) only including the interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of entering into an agreement for sale of suit premises till the date of realization as damages and cost of prestige.
c) Decree for the cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
d) The right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property may be declared and the order passed in M 495/2000 and the order dated 29.04.2000 declared null and void as it is not operative against the plaintiff.
e) Any other relief or reliefs be awarded in favour of the plaintiff, which will be deemed fit and proper.
5. He next submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, on 20.12.2002, an application was filed by the parties of Title Suit No. 12 of 2001 praying therein for transfer of their case to Lok Adalat for the purpose of settlement between the parties. He refers to the order sheet and submits that after filing of application on 20.12.2002, the prayer was allowed and records were transferred to Lok Adalat scheduled on 21.12.2002. He also submits that the said suit instead of going to Lok Adalat was erroneously transferred to Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat after receipt of record on 21.12.2002 registered a separate case being PLA Case No. 270 of 2002 and thereafter the proceeding held on several dates and ultimately on 18.02.2003 on the basis of joint compromise petition filed by the parties therein, a suit for specific performance of contract was disposed of and the office was directed to prepare a decree and thereafter the decree was drawn and signed on 04.03.2003 by Permanent Lok Adalat. He then submits that for the execution of the said decree of Permanent Lok Adalat, the opposite party herein filed the Execution Case No.01 of 2010 against the petitioner herein and her mother, as because by that time, the original defendant namely Laxmi Narayan Sahu passed away. He next submits that the mother and the petitioner appeared in the said execution case and filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedur
