Lok Adalats Can't Entertain Any Applications Where Judicial Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by the Lok-Adalat accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit is not valid. A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Pooja and quashed the compromise decree dated 27-10- 2007 passed by the Taluka Legal Authority, Sindagi (Lok Adalat). It said, “Since the conciliators have exercised the judicial powers while presiding over the Lok – Adalat, order passed by the Lok –Adalat in accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit needs to be set aside as it is opposed to the settled principles of law.” The petitioner being the minor defendant in the suit was represented by her grandfather. It was stated that the suit ended in a compromise by filing a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. An application was also filed by the counsel for the petitioner under Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC for permitting the grandfather of the petitioner to seek permission to enter into a compromise. Following this, the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner challenged it before the Court by filing the present writ petition after receiving the notice in the execution petition. Petitioner contended that the decree of the Lok-Adalat cannot be challenged anywhere else except by filing the writ petition and therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court. Respondents submitted that before the Lok–Adalat, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, was filed, as was an application under Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC. Therefore, the order accepting the compromise by the Lok–Adalat is just and proper, it was argued. The bench on going through the records noted that the proceedings before the Lok-Adalat were not a judicial proceeding, although a Judicial Officer presides over the Lok–Adalat as a conciliator along with an advocate conciliator.It was stated that before the Lok-Adalat, such a Judicial Officer was not entitled to discharge the job of a 'Judge' and his role is only that of a conciliator. Thus it held, “Therefore, by sheer logic, it would result that the Lok–Adalat cannot entertain an application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC or for that matter, any other applications where judicial orders are required to be passed.” It added,“Further, it is settled principles of law that the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is to be accepted by the Court after entering satisfaction. Such a power is not available to the conciliators who preside over the Lok – Adalat (One of them being a Judicial Officer, but will be acting as a conciliator).” Accordingly, it allowed the petition and restored the suit on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Sindagi for disposal in accordance with law. Appearance: Advocate S.S. Mamadapur for Petitioner. Advocate Mahadev S. Patil for Respondent. Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152 Case title: Pooja AND Siddanna & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.205205 OF 2019

Lok Adalats Can't Entertain Any Applications Where Judicial Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Lok Adalats Can't Entertain Any Applications Where Judicial Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers