##PAGE1##

139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21.05.2025 Balwinder Singh (deceased)

through his legal heirs ...Appellant Vs.

Gurmeet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

***

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (Oral)

1. The defendant assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order which in turn has reversed the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC). Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not a party to the award passed by Permanent Lok Adalat. On account of lack of proper advice, they filed various proceedings. Ultimately, they filed a suit claiming that the award passed by Permanent Lok Adalat on 08.01.2020 is not binding on them. The trial Court rejected their plaint, however, the First Appellate Court reversed the same by recording the following observations:-

"20. After having heard both sides and perusing the record carefully, it transpires that a very short question is involved in the present case. As per the plaintiffs/appellants, the Award had been passed behind their back by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) vide order dated 08.01.2020, leaving them with no other remedy except to file the civil suit and challenge the Award of the PLA. To appreciate this argument, it is appropriate to consider section 22- E (1) of the Legal Services Authority Act 1988, which reads as follows:

22E -Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final - (1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act, made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement, shall be final and binding on all the parties thereof and on persons claiming under them.

Perusal of clause 22 E (1) reveals that the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is binding only on the parties to the litigation and not on third parties who were not made parties in the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat. It is a matter of record that the present appellants were not parties to the proceedings before the PLA, and the Award was passed on the application moved by the respondent against the Revenue Authorities. As such, the appellants/plaintiffs, not being parties to the proceedings before the PLA, cannot be bound by any Award passed by the PLA. The law laid down in the various authorities cited on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs is also clear and unambiguous. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has not been able to point out why and how these citations are not applicable to the case at hand. Therefore, the appellants had no other remedy except to challenge the Award before the civil court.

21. With regard to limitation, it is sufficient to say that it has been plausibly shown that the appellants/plaintiffs were availing themselves of their remedy under the law by filing a civil revision before the Hon’ble High Court. The same was filed on 07.05.2024 and was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.09.2024 with liberty to avail remedies under the law. No doubt, the argument raised on behalf of the respondent is plausible to the extent that the period of limitation for filing the appeal against the order dated 08.02.2024 had already expired on 08.03.2024, much before the filing of the civil revision before the Hon’ble High Court. However, a civil revision can be filed within 90 days of the passing of the order to be challenged. Therefore, the civil revision filed on 07.05.2024 was well within limitation. Since the Hon’ble High Court allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the civil revision with liberty to avail remedies under the law, as particularly mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay stands justified. Moreover, no reply has been filed to the application for condonation of delay, and the arguments advanced before this Court themselves indicate that the respondent was well aware that the appeal was