Jharkhand High Court

Sadanand Paswan vs Kabita Devi on 8 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                 2025:JHHC:10803




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                          C.M.P. No. 400 of 2023
                                         ----

1. Sadanand Paswan, aged about 56 years

2. Anand Paswan, aged about 54 years

3. Parmanand Paswan, aged about 52 years

4. Samokan Paswan @ Samokhan Paswan, aged about 48 years

5. Suresh Paswan, aged about 44 years

6. Dhiraj Paswan, aged about 37 years All sons of Late Radhe Paswan and resident of Bartalla Street, Dahiya Tola, PO and PS - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj

7. Lakshmi Devi, aged about 47 years, wife of Mahendra Paswan, resident of near Shiv Mandir, Gulli Bhatta, PO and PS - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj

8. Sushila Devi, aged about 44 years, wife of Subodh Paswan, resident of Railway Quarter, Jharna Colony, PO and PS - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1. Kabita Devi, wife of Late Rajgir Paswan

2. Deonandan Paswan, son of Late Kutai Paswan

3. Arjun Paswan, son of Late Rajgir Paswan, All are resident of Mohalla Dahiya Tola, Koolipara, PO and PS - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate :- Ms. Anushka Swadha, Advocate For the Respondents :-

----

07/08.04.2025 Notices upon the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have been

validly served.

2. This matter was adjourned on 10.03.2025 with a view to

2025:JHHC:10803

provide one more opportunity to the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 in

spite of that nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1

to 3 and in view of that this petition is being heard in absence of

opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting of the order dated 28.11.2022

passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) - I, Sahibganj, whereby

the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the Civil Misc. Case

No.06 of 2018 for execution of Award dated 08.07.2017 passed in

Mediation Case No.165 of 2017 by Lok Adalat.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are plaintiff in Title Suit No.52 of 2007 which was

decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners by the learned Court of

Sub-Judge - III, Sahibganj. He submits that the

respondents/defendants filed the Title Appeal No.48 of 2009 against

the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.52 of 2007 which

was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011. He

submits that the petitioners had filed Execution Case No.07 of 2016

which was pending before the learned Court of Sr. Civil Judge-I,

Sahibganj. He submits that the respondents preferred Second

Appeal before this Court and status of second appeal is not known.

The Execution Case No.07 of 2016 was referred to Mediator for

resolving the dispute and the case before Mediator was registered

as Mediation Case No.165 of 2017 and the parties amicably resolved

2025:JHHC:10803

their dispute on 07.07.2017. The report was referred to Lok Adalat

and accordingly an award was passed by the Lok Adalat, Sahibganj

on 08.07.2017 contained in Annexure-1. He submits that the suit

was with regard to handover of peaceful possession and the

compromise has reached to the effect that the peaceful possession

in terms of the compromise will be provided. However, the award

was not complied and in view of that the Civil Miscellaneous Case

No.06 of 2018 was filed. He submits that the learned Court has

been pleased to dismiss the same by order dated 28.11.2022 on the

ground that the provision of law is not disclosed. He submits that

the award was already there of the Lok Adalat on the basis of the

compromise and in view of that in light of Section 21 of the Legal

Services Authority Act the said award is executable in spite of that

the learned Court has passed the said order. He further submits that

if the correct provision of law was not mentioned due to wrong

advice that cannot be a ground of rejecting the petition. He submits

in view of that this petition has been filed and that order may kindly

be set aside.

5. The Court has perused the materials on record and finds

that admittedly the suit was instituted legally which was decided in

favour of the petitioners. Title Appeal No.48 of 2009 was dismissed

by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011 and the Execution Case

No.07 of 2016 was filed which was pending. Second appeal was

preferred by the respondents, however the status of second appeal

2025:JHHC:10803

is not known. In the meantime, the execution case was sent for

mediation and pursuant to mediation, the case before Mediator was

registered as Mediation Case No.165 of 2017. Admittedly, the

compromise was reached between the parties pursuant to that the

Lok Adalat has passed the compromise Award dated 08.07.2017 and

in this background, the miscellaneous case was filed. By the

impugned order, the learned Court has dismissed the said

miscellaneous case only on the ground that the correct provision of

law is not disclosed.

6. It is well settled that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect

provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an

order is available with the court.

7. In light of Section 21 of Legal Service Authority Act, the

award of Lok Adalat is a decree which can be executed.

8. With the object of providing free legal aid, Government had,

by Resolution dated 26th September, 1980 appointed the

"Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes" (CILAS) and in

that after several deliberations it was felt necessary to constitute

statutory legal service authorities at the National, State and District

levels so as to provide for the effective monitoring of legal aid

programmes and in that view of the matter the Legal Services

Authority Act has been enacted.

9. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act speaks as

under :-

2025:JHHC:10803

21. Award of Lok Adalat :--

(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).--

(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

10. This aspect of the matter has already been considered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N. Govindan Kutty

Menon versus C.D. Shaji reported in 2011 (8) Supreme 292

wherein at paragraph Nos.8 and 17, it has been held as under :-

8) Section 21 of the Act, which we have extracted above, contemplates a deeming provision, hence, it is a legal fiction that the "award" of the Lok Adalat is a decree of a civil court. In the case on hand, the question posed for consideration before the High Court was that "when a criminal case referred to by the Magistrate to a Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of civil court and thus executable by that court?" After highlighting the relevant provisions, namely, Section 21 of the Act, it was contended before the High Court that every award passed by the Lok Adalat has to be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such executable by that court. Unfortunately, the said argument was not acceptable by the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court has concluded that when a criminal case is referred to the Lok Adalat and it is settled at the Lok Adalat, the award passed has to be treated only as an order of that criminal court and it cannot be executed as a decree of the civil court. After saying so, the High Court finally concluded "an award passed by the Lok Adalat on

2025:JHHC:10803

reference of a criminal case by the criminal court as already concluded can only be construed as an order by the criminal court and it is not a decree passed by a civil court" and confirmed the order of the Principal Munsiff who declined the request of the petitioner therein to execute the award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference of a complaint by the criminal court. On going through the Statement of Objects and Reasons, definition of `Court', `legal service' as well as Section 21 of the Act, in addition to the reasons given hereunder, we are of the view that the interpretation adopted by the Kerala High Court in the impugned order is erroneous.

17) From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:

1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court.

2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.

3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.

4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.

11. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the award of the

Lok Adalat is a decree which is executable in light of Section 21 of

2025:JHHC:10803

Legal Services Authorities Act. Correct provision is not disclosed and

that cannot be a ground of rejecting the petition and the power to

execute is there, as such the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 is

hereby set aside.

12. The matter is remitted back to the learned Court to proceed

further in accordance with law for implementation of the award

dated 08.07.2017 of the Lok Adalat.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/ A.F.R.