Smt. Rukmani vs Neelam Baghel
2022 Latest Caselaw 16992 MP

                                                         1
                       IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                               BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                         ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                          CIVIL REVISION No. 286 of 2019

                      BETWEEN:-
                      SMT. RUKMANI W/O SHRI MOHANLAL SONI, AGED
                      ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O NEAR
                      RAMMA BADA PARASIYA DISTT. CHHINDWARA M.P.
                      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                      (BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR NAVERIA - ADVOCATE)

                      AND
                      1.    NEELAM BAGHEL D/O SHRI BABULAL BAGHEL,
                            AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O DURGAWATI WARD
                            GANJ WARD SEONI TEH. AND DISTT.SEONI M.P.
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.    MOHANLAL S/O SHRI PUSULAL SONI, AGED
                            ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O TRILOKI COLONY,BEHIND
                            RAILWAY STATION NEAR BASANT SONI S
                            HOUSE,WARD NO.19,MOKSHDHAM RAOD,NEAR
                            CHHOTU      RAJESH,P.S.    TEHSIL    AND
                            DISTTCHHINDWADA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR SEONI
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
                      RESPONDENT-STATE)

                            Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                      following:
                                                          ORDER

Signature Not SAN Verified With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. Digitally signed by DEVESH K This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.03.2019 SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.23 10:25:17 IST

passed by the District Judge, Seoni in MJC No.141/18, whereby the learned Appellate Court has rejected the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and also rejected the First Appeal on the ground that it is barred by time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Suit No.114/15 was filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2, 3 and the present petitioner before the learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Class-II Seoni. The petitioner was represented through his counsel and she had filed her written statement. The petitioner was in regular connection with her counsel about the progress of Civil Suit but all of a sudden it came into her knowledge that the aforesaid Civil Suit was disposed off on 08.07.2017 before National Lok Adalat by way of

compromise application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC by respondent No.1 and 2 and accordingly, compromise decree was drawn by the learned trial Court. In fact, the petitioner was neither ready to compromise nor his counsel has intimated about the same to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in not giving proper emphasis to the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. She has duly explained the delay in filing the First appeal. The impugned order is non-speaking order. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submits that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.114-A/2015 was passed in Lok Adalat. Therefore, the judgment and order was not appealable. The aforesaid judgment and decree may be challenged in writ petition under Article 226 and / or Article 227 of Constitution of India.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. By going through the record it is evident that on 08.07.2017, the parties have

compromised the matter in Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No. 114 A/2015, therefore, the order and decree was passed accordingly. The aforesaid order and decree was challenged by the petitioner in First Appellate Court along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

The First Appeal was filed by the petitioner on 10.09.2018 against the order dated 08.07.2017 i.e. after more than 1 year. The cause shown by the petitioner for delayed filing of appeal was that she had no knowledge of the order passed by the Lok Adalat because compromise application was filed due to collusion and fraud. Thereafter, she got to know about the aforesaid only on 07.09.2018 after receiving the certified copy of the judgment and decree.

The First Appellant Court observed that the petitioner has not explained the day to day delay in the application. She has not shown adequate reason for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the First Appellate Court had rejected the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as the First Appeal.

Considering the impugned order, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned appellate Court was perverse or illegal. Therefore, interference is not required. Apart from that, so far as the question of maintainability of the appeal is concerned, in this aspect the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others. passed in (2008) 2 SCC 660 held as under :-

It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by the parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adallat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a

petition under Article 226 and / or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs that respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.

In the judgment dated 07.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in case of Munni Devi and Ors. vs. Dul Dul Prasad and Ors. passed in WP(C) No.21 of 2019 wherein paragraph 8 of the judgment states that (Bhargavi Construction and Anr. Vs. Kothakapu Murthyam Reddy and Ors) Civil Appeal No.11345/2017 has followed the case of Jalour Singh (Supra). Thus, There is no doubt that the order of Lok Adalat can be assailed under Article 226 and / or Article 227 of Constitution of India.

In view of foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the order and decree passed by the Lok Adalat can be assailed in the writ petition under Article 226 and / or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the First Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order and decree passed in Lok Adalat is not maintainable. In this view, the impugned order also cannot be interfered.

Accordingly, this civil revision is disposed off.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE DevS