1. Writ petition challenging Lok Adalat award disposing partition suit based on compromise petition. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37003
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S Vishwajith Shetty, J
Jayarangamma – Appellant
Versus
Rathnamma – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 5459 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Sathisha D.J
For the Respondents: Sri Rajarama S
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Sathisha D.J
For the Respondents: Sri Rajarama S
An award passed by a Lok Adalat is binding only on the parties to the dispute. Third parties aggrieved by such an award must seek remedy through a separate civil suit rather than a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21(2) - National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations 2009 - Regulation 17 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 23 Rule 3 - Challenge to Lok Adalat Award by third parties - An award passed by the Lok Adalat is final and binding only on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against such award (S. 21(2) of the Act) - A third party, who is not bound by the award, cannot ordinarily challenge the award in a writ petition, especially where disputed questions of fact are involved - The appropriate remedy for an aggrieved third party is to institute a separate suit in a Civil Court for necessary redressal. (Paras 8, 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
A suit for partition (O.S. No. 35/2010) was disposed of by the Lok Adalat on 20.02.2010 based on a compromise petition filed by the parties. Subsequently, third parties claiming interest in the property through a Gift Deed and matrimonial relationship challenged the award under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that they were not parties to the original suit and that the award should be set aside.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not parties to the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, such awards are binding only on the parties to the dispute. Since the petitioners have already filed a separate civil suit (O.S. No. 795/2022) for declaration and permanent injunction, an efficacious alternative remedy is already being pursued.
Issues: Whether a third party can challenge a Lok Adalat award through a writ petition under Article 227 and whether such award is binding on individuals who were not parties to the original dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Lok Adalat awards are binding only on the disputing parties. Third parties cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or 227 to challenge such awards if the matter involves complicated questions of fact; they must instead seek relief through a regular civil suit.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners (non-parties) challenge award as illegal; respondents argue petitioners must file separate suit. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Lok Adalat award under Section 21(2) Legal Services Authorities Act is final only on parties, not third parties. (Para 9 , 11 )
4. Third party not bound by Lok Adalat award can challenge it by civil suit, not writ petition. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek remedy before civil court. (Para 14 )
6. Is a Lok Adalat award binding on third parties?
No. Under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the award is final and binding only on the parties to the dispute. (Para 9 , 11 )
7. Can a third party challenge a Lok Adalat award by writ petition?
Ordinarily no. If complicated questions of fact exist, the third party should file a civil suit. A writ petition may lie only in extraordinary cases involving fraud etc. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. What is the remedy for a third party aggrieved by a Lok Adalat award?
The remedy is to institute a separate civil suit for appropriate relief, not a writ petition under Article 227. (Para 12 , 13 )
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E, DTD 20.2.2010 IN O.S.NO.35/2010 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT CHANNARAYAPATNA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.35 of 2010 which was pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Channarayapatna by the Lok Adalath, based on the compromise petition filed by the parties to the suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. O.S.No.35 of 2010 was filed before the jurisdictional civil Court by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the plaint in O.S.No.35 of 2010 it is averred that, the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant nos.1 & 2 in the said suit. One Sri. Govindegowda is arrayed as defendant no.1 and his wife Smt. Jayamma is arrayed as defendant no.2 in the suit. At the request of the parties, the suit was referred to Lok Adalath and before the Lok Adalath, the parties had filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, based on which the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise petition by order dated 20.02.2010. Challenging the said order passed by the Lok Adalath, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the wife of Govindegowda and petitioner no.1 has executed a Gift Deed in favour of petitioner no.2 in respect of the property which was subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2010. Petitioners are not parties to O.S.No.35 of 2010. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 were not at all related to Govindegowda. Govindegowda has died on 17.09.2020. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 in O.S.No.35 of 2010 are trying to interfere with the property. He also submits that the Lok Adalath could not have disposed of the suit for partition on the basis of the settlement reported by the parties in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. RENUKA V. SRI RAMANAND & ANR in W.P.No.103766 of 2018, disposed of on 31.03.2020. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the petition. He submitted that petitioners are total strangers to the plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.35 of 2010. At their request, the order impugned cannot be set aside. If they are aggrieved by the said order, they are required to file a separate suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that plaintiff in O.S.No.35 of 2010 claim to be the foster daughter of defendant no.1 - Govindegowda and defendant no.2 - Jayamma. The parties had settled the inter se dispute in O.S.No.35 of 2010 and had accordingly filed a compromise petition before the Lok Adalath and based on the same vide the order impugned the suit was decreed.
7. In the case of SMT. RENUKA (supra) , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that if the compromise petition is filed before the Court, it is for the Court to record the compromise and the matter cannot be referred to Lok Adalath. But the same is not the fact situation in the present case. In the present case, the parties who were referred to Lok Adalath by the Court had filed their compromise petition before the Lok Adalath and based on the same, the Lok Adalath has passed the impugned order and therefore, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. RENUKA (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) reads as follows:-
"21. Award of Lok Adalat.—(1)
