22 April 2025 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court recently reiterated the binding nature of Supreme Court pronouncements on the challenge to awards passed by Lok Adalats. In a Civil Revision Application of Surekha Tanaji Naik v/s Tajani Balaso Naik, Justice N.J. Jamadar quashed an order of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jaysingpur, which had entertained a Miscellaneous Civil Application seeking to set aside a Lok Adalat award. The High Court firmly held that such awards can only be challenged through a writ petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, and not before a Civil Court, even on grounds of alleged fraud.

The case originated from a matrimonial dispute that was eventually settled before the National Lok Adalat on 13 July 2019. A compromise memo was filed, and the Lok Adalat Panel recorded the settlement, disposing of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005).

Subsequently, the respondents (husband and his family) filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jaysingpur, who had also headed the Lok Adalat Panel. They alleged that the compromise order was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, claiming they were not present when the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise. They also contended the property allotted to the applicant (wife) was joint family property and could not be exclusively given to her.

The applicant (wife) sought rejection of this application, arguing that a Lok Adalat award could only be challenged via a writ petition before the High Court. However, the Civil Judge rejected her application, reasoning that since the respondents had filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application and not a suit, the bar against challenging a Lok Adalat award by way of a suit was not applicable, and the Civil Court was competent to examine the legality of the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

High Court's Observations and Decision:

Justice N.J. Jamadar firmly disagreed with the Civil Judge's approach. The High Court emphasized the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which state that every award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is final and binding, with no appeal lying against it.

The High Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's three-judge bench decision in State of Punjab V/s. Jalour Singh, which clearly stated that a Lok Adalat award based on a settlement is final and binding and can only be challenged through a writ petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution on very limited grounds.

Furthermore, the High Court cited another significant Supreme Court judgment, Bhargavi Constructions and Anr. V/s. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors., which directly addressed the issue of challenging a Lok Adalat award on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions unequivocally held that even allegations of fraud do not permit a challenge to the Lok Adalat award before a Civil Court. The only recourse for an aggrieved party is to file a writ petition before the High Court.

Justice [Name of Judge, if available] stated that the Civil Judge had erred in entertaining the Miscellaneous Civil Application, holding that the medium of the proceeding used to challenge the Lok Adalat award was irrelevant. Whether the challenge was brought through a separate suit or a miscellaneous application in the original proceedings, it was not maintainable before the Civil Court.

The High Court also rejected the Civil Judge's reliance on Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While this provision allows a court that passed a consent decree to examine the legality of the underlying compromise, the High Court clarified that this provision cannot be used to circumvent the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding challenges to Lok Adalat awards.

Concluding that the very act of entertaining the challenge to the Lok Adalat award by the Civil Court was legally unsustainable, the Bombay High Court allowed the Revision Application, quashed the Civil Judge's order, and rejected the respondents' Miscellaneous Civil Application. The Court clarified that there would be no order as to costs in the circumstances.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005