Lok Adalats Can Settle Disputes Of Any Pecuniary Value Within Its Territorial Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a writ petition challenging an award passed by the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee on the grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

The petitioners and the party respondent had entered into an agreement for sale for which the latter had paid an advance amount of more than 98 lakhs. Though the sale did not take place, the petitioners refund the advance amount and the respondent had to institute a complaint before the Taluk Legal Services Authority.

The petitioners were directed to appear via telephone and they did so along with a lawyer. Thereafter, the impugned award was passed recording the petitioner's undertaking that they were willing to refund the advance amount. The petitioners also handed over post-dated cheques to the party respondent.

Subsequently, the cheques were not honoured and the respondent filed an execution petition to execute the award. The petitioners objected to the execution petition and thereafter, came before the High Court challenging the award.

The petitioners contended that the award was passed by playing a fraud on them. They also put forth an argument that the Taluk Legal Services Committee did not have jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's complaint.

The Court rejected the allegation of fraud noting that the petitioners have admitted that there was no coercion for their appearance and that they were accompanied by a lawyer. It was remarked that fraud cannot be made out merely because the petitioners were directed to appear before the Adalat on the very next day, and when they appeared as directed, they were forced into the compromise.

Alleging lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners pointed out that the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee did not have any jurisdiction since they could not have instituted a suit with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction since Adoor Taluk did not have a Sub-Court. The petitioners also referred to Section 19(5)(ii) of the Act.

Addressing the argument, the Court held:

“Though the afore contention appears to be attractive, on a deeper analysis of the provisions of Section 19(5) of the Act, I am of the opinion that insofar as Section 19(5) has not spoken about any “pecuniary jurisdiction” and has only spoken about “territorial jurisdiction” the petitioners are not entitled to succeed.”

Section 19 of the Act is with respect to organization of Lok Adalats. Section 19(1) lays down that every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.

Section 19(5) is extracted below:

“(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of—

(i) any case pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized…”

The Court also referred the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Court in which a similar position of law was laid down.

Thus, the Court dismissed the plea.

Case No: WP(C) No. 39720 of 2023

Case Title: Prasanth P. Kumar and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

Counsel for the petitioners: T.M. Raman Kartha, Manju R. Kartha, M.S. Soujath, Syama Mohan, Revathy M.A., Greeshma T.G., Sneha Brigit Prince

Counsel for the respondents: Shameena Salahudeen, K. Shaj, Arun Chand, Bharat Vijay P., Kevin James, Sylaja S.L. – Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment