Can You Pursue Specific Performance of an Agreement Through a Permanent Lok Adalat?

In the search for faster, more cost-effective methods of dispute resolution, many litigants consider the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) as a viable alternative to traditional civil litigation. However, a common misconception exists regarding the scope of the PLA’s power. A frequent question arises: can a case for the specific performance of an agreement be filed before a Permanent Lok Adalat? The short answer is no. While the PLA serves a critical function in the Indian legal system, it lacks the jurisdictional authority to decree specific performance of an agreement. Seeking such relief requires a different legal approach.

Understanding the Role of the Permanent Lok Adalat

The Permanent Lok Adalat is established under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Its jurisdiction is specifically confined to cases involving public utility services as defined under Section 22A of the Act. The primary objective of the PLA is to facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes through conciliation.

It is important to distinguish the PLA’s function from that of a standard civil court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that a Lok Adalat—and by extension, a Permanent Lok Adalat—does not possess traditional adjudicatory or judicial functions in the same manner as a court of law. Its core role is to assist parties in reaching a mutually agreeable compromise. 2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 16 and 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 597

The Jurisdictional Limit on Specific Performance

Specific performance is a form of equitable relief. In the Indian legal system, this relief is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Such remedies involve the court directing a party to perform their contractual obligations exactly as agreed. Because this involves a deep examination of legal rights, evidence, and the exercise of judicial discretion, it is considered a function exclusive to a Civil Court.

The Permanent Lok Adalat, being a statutory tribunal, does not have the power to grant such equitable remedies. Even if the parties are embroiled in a contract dispute, the PLA cannot pass an order or a decree forcing one party to perform the specific terms of an agreement. As noted by legal experts, the PLA lacks the jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis, as such, between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at an agreed settlement between the parties has failed. 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 597

The Deemed Decree Misconception

A common point of confusion arises from Section 22E(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which states that every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1854 and 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 1150

Many litigants mistakenly believe that because an award can be executed like a decree, the PLA can therefore decree anything a civil court can. This is a misunderstanding of legal fiction. The deemed decree status is a mechanism provided solely for the purpose of execution. It does not broaden the substantive powers of the PLA. The PLA cannot pass an award that essentially functions as a decree for specific performance if it lacks the inherent jurisdiction to order that specific performance in the first place. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1854

The Mandatory Process of Conciliation

The statutory framework governing the PLA is strict. Before a dispute can even be considered for decision on merit, the Permanent Lok Adalat must strictly follow the procedures outlined in Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. This involves active attempts at conciliation. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 1150 and 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32795

If the PLA skips the conciliation phase or fails to assist the parties in reaching an amicable settlement—as required by Section 22C(4) and 22C(5)—its actions are often viewed as procedurally flawed. In many instances, when a PLA attempts to bypass these steps to jump directly into an adjudicatory phase without proper foundation, higher courts have set aside those awards.

Branch Manager, Cholamandam M. S. General Insurance Company VS Manju Manjesh Rathore Wd/o Late Radheshyam Rathore

Furthermore, it is not open to everyone to approach the PLA. Courts have clarified that the PLA is intended to provide accessible justice, often with the objective of helping the weaker sections of society. Entities with substantial financial presence or those who do not fall under the statutory criteria for legal services may find that the PLA is not the appropriate forum for their disputes. In such cases, the court may direct them to seek adjudication in a standard court of law. 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 652

What Should You Do Instead?

If you are seeking to enforce a contract through specific performance, the following steps are generally recommended:

1. File in Civil Court: You must approach the appropriate Civil Court with jurisdiction over the matter. The Civil Court is the only forum empowered to grant specific relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2003 4 Supreme 497
2. Evaluate the Nature of the Dispute: Ensure your claim actually falls under the definition of a dispute that requires specific performance rather than a simple claim for damages or a public utility service complaint.
3. Understand Forum Limitations: Do not attempt to use the Permanent Lok Adalat as a substitute for a Civil Court. While the PLA is efficient for specific types of public utility disputes where a settlement is possible, it is not a shortcut for complex contract litigation.

Summary and Key Considerations

While the Permanent Lok Adalat is a valuable institution for resolving certain types of disputes, it is not a court of general jurisdiction. Its authority is limited by the statute that created it. Attempting to obtain a decree for specific performance through the PLA will likely result in the award being challenged in a writ petition, leading to delays and the potential setting aside of the proceedings.

It is always advisable to consult with a qualified legal professional to determine the correct venue for your specific case. Each dispute carries unique facts, and reliance on the wrong forum can lead to wasted time and resources. Ensure that you are not pursuing an equitable remedy in a forum that lacks the legislative power to grant it.