Back
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
Gorentla Kishan – Appellant
Versus
Kancha Ramakka – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The award passed by Lok Adalat, when based on a settlement signed by the parties, is final and binding, and it can be executed as if it were a decree of a civil court. No appeal lies against such an award, and challenges can only be made through a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, on very limited grounds (!) (!) .
If the Lok Adalat's order is not based on a settlement but directs parties to approach the court or High Court for further proceedings, it is not considered an award of the Lok Adalat and cannot be challenged in the same manner (!) .
The proper remedy for challenging a Lok Adalat award is a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial court or subordinate courts do not have jurisdiction to revoke or set aside such awards on their own (!) (!) .
Any attempt by a trial court to set aside or revoke a Lok Adalat award, especially through detailed inquiry, constitutes a jurisdictional error and is not permissible. Such actions are beyond the authority of the trial court and violate established legal principles (!) .
The decision to set aside the Lok Adalat award in the case was reversed, and the award was restored. However, the aggrieved party has the right to challenge the award by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which will decide on the merits of the challenge (!) .
The parties are to bear their respective costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions are to be closed (!) .
These points emphasize the finality of Lok Adalat awards based on settlements, the limited scope of challenge, and the jurisdictional boundaries of subordinate courts versus the High Court in such matters.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the orders dated 09.10.2015 in I.A.No.238 of 2007 in O.S.No.697 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
2. Application in I.A.No.238 of 2007 was filed under Order 22, Rule 3(A) of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to set aside the compromise decree passed by Lok Adalat on 26.04.2006 in O.S.No.697 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal has allowed the said application by setting aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 26.04.2006 in O.S.No.697 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this CRP.
3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides have received due consideration of this Court. Perused the record.
4. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as they were arrayed in OS No.697 of 2006 before the trial Court.
5. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.697 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for the relief of perpetual injun
The award of Lok Adalat is final and binding, challengeable only through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, not in Civil Court.
A Lok Adalat award can be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on limited grounds, and a civil suit is not maintainable to challenge a Lok Adalat aw....
Objection to execution of decree – Statutory finality attached to Lok Adalat award leaves no room for appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree – Award may be executed a....
A writ petition challenging a compromise decree entered before Lok Adalat by non-impleaded necessary parties is maintainable due to allegations of fraud and procedural irregularity.
Once there is no compromise and/or a settlement between parties before Lok Adalat, matter has to be returned to Court from where matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits by....
A compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat cannot be challenged on grounds of misrepresentation if official records affirm that the parties were read the terms in their known language and voluntarily....
Parties not involved in Lok Adalat proceedings can challenge the award in High Court under Article 227, especially if their rights are adversely affected.
The Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction by making a non-party to the original suit a party and failing to provide a fair hearing, violating the Legal Services Authority Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
