No Civil Remedies Against Lok Adalat Award, Only Remedy Is To Invoke High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an award passed by the Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“LSA”) cannot be set aside or annulled by the Executing Court. The proper avenue for challenging the award would be to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court said.

“The principle that emerges is that the statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree. The award may be executed as a decree, but its validity cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating some other civil proceeding as a vehicle for setting it aside. The only recognised avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while setting aside the MP High Court's decision refusing to entertain his writ petition challenging a compromise decree passed by the Jabalpur Lok Adalat.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition on the ground he had already filed objections under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC before the Executing Court.

Calling the High Court's approach erroneous, the Court observed:

“the approach of the High Court in the present case cannot be sustained. Once the decree which is sought to be executed is one that merely embodies a Lok Adalat award under the LSA Act, the role of the Executing Court is confined to giving effect to that award in terms of execution. It has no authority to annul or set aside the award itself, or the decree drawn in its terms, nor can it sit in judgment over the validity of the compromise on which the Lok Adalat proceeded. Treating the filing of objections in such execution as an “efficacious alternative remedy” for challenging the award is therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme.”

Remanding the case back to the High Court, the Court said that once the award is passed by the Lok Adalat, no room for ordinary civil remedies lies, and the only remedy is to file a Writ Petition before the High Court.

“We are therefore of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the appellant to assail the Lok Adalat decree dated 14.05.2022 was maintainable and that the High Court was not justified in declining to examine it on the ground of an alleged alternative remedy in execution.”, the court held.

Appearances :

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar Sr Adv, Mr. Siddharth R Gupta Adv, Mr. Sankalp Kochar Adv, Mr. Siddhant Kochar Adv, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar AOR, Mr. Aman Agarwal Adv, Mr. Uddaish Palya Adv, Mr. Aditya Sidhra Adv, Ms. Surbhi Saxena Adv, Mr. Siddharth Sahu Adv, Ms. Astha Singh Adv, Mr. Nr Shwetabh Adv.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava Sr Adv, Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava AOR, Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava Adv, Mr. Malik Arjun Khare Adv, Ms. Shruti Verma Adv, Ms. Ananya Sahu Adv, Mr. Boudhik Garg Adv, Mr. Shashank S Dwivedi Adv, Mr. Atharva Joshi Adv, Ms. Kavya Verma Adv, Mr. Pallav Sishodiya Sr Adv, Mr. Kunal Verma AOR, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha Adv, Ms. Yasha Goyal Adv, Ms. Swati Mishra Adv, Mr. A K Sanghi Sr Adv, Mr. V Sridhar Reddy Adv, Mr. Abhijit Sengupta AOR, Mr. Hardeep Adv, Mr. Deepak Bahl Adv

Cause Title: DILIP MEHTA VERSUS RAKESH GUPTA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1188

Click here to download order