[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
An Application Under Section115 Of The ... vs Prabhat Kumar Swain on 5 January, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
CRP No.17 of 2023
An application under Section115 of the C.P.C.,
1908.
Baman Charan Swain ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Prabhat Kumar Swain
and others ... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Sr.
Advocate assisted by Ms. S.
Mohanty, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. L. K. Moharana,
Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 05.01.2026 / date of judgment : 05.01.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908
has been filed by the petitioner(Respondent No.1 in the
1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006) praying for setting
aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-
1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District
Judge, Cuttack.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which
prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the
Opposite Party No.1(Prabhat Kumar Swain) in this
revision being the appellant had filed the 1st appeal vide
RFA No.40 of 2006 under Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908
in the court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack
praying for setting aside the compromise decree on the
ground of fraud passed in a suit vide T.S. No.110 of
1993 in the court of learned Sub-judge, 1st Court,
Cuttack on dated 21.03.1993 (Annexure-4) in a Lok
Adalat.
During the pendency of that 1st appeal vide RFA
No.40 of 2006, the Respondent No.1 in that 1st
appeal(petitioner in this revision) filed a petition on
dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure-6) praying for
rejection/dismissal of the 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of
2006 on the ground of its maintainability stating that,
the compromise decree passed on dated
21.03.1993(Annexure-4) in the suit vide T.S. No.110 of
1993 in the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by
preferring an appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 under
Section 96 of the C.P.C., 1908 due to bar contained in
Section 21(2) of The Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987, for which, the said 1st appeal vide RFA No.40 of
2006 filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected,
because, the same is not maintainable/entertainable
under law.
3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned
District Judge, Cuttack rejected to the petition dated
21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the Respondent No.1 of that
1st appeal vie RFA No.40 of 2006 on dated
06.03.2023(Annexure-1) relying upon the decision of
this Court between Smt. Gourimani @ Umamani Devi
and others vrs. Narayan Tripathy and others :
reported in 2016(I) CLR-398 assigning the reasons that,
"as the appellant in the said 1st appeal vide RFA
No.40 of 2006 was not a party in the suit vide T.S.
No.110 of 1993, for which, he is not precluded under law
to challenge the compromise decree passed in that suit in
the Lok Adalat on dated 21.03.1993(Annexure-4) by
preferring an appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006."
4. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order
dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1), i.e., to the rejection of
the petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the
petitioner for rejection of the RFA No.40 of 2006, he
(petitioner in this revision) challenged the same by filing
this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908
against the appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006 arraying
him as Opposite Party No.1 and also arraying others as
proforma Opposite Parties praying for setting aside the
impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed
by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.40 of
2006.
5. I have already heard from the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in RFA
No.40 of 2006) and the learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No.1(appellant in RFA No.40 of 2006).
6. In order to assail the impugned order dated
06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006,
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the decision of the Apex Court between Bharvagi
Constructions and another vrs. Kothakapu
Muthyam Reddy and others : reported in 2017(II) CLR
(S.C.)-825.
7. The legal procedures/forums for challenging a
compromise decree passed in a Lok Afdalat like the
impugned compromise decree passed on dated
21.03.1993(Annexure-4) in T.S. No.110 of 1993 has
already been clarified in the ratio of following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Sri Purna Chandra Das
vrs. Smt. Pagili Das and others : reported in
2015(I) CLR-395 that, when a compromise decree
passed in a suit in a Lok Adalat is challenged on the
ground of violation of its procedures, the said
allegations can only be enquired into and considered
by the same court, in which, the compromise decree
in the Lok Adalat was passed, but, not by any other
court or by any appellate court.
(ii) In a case between Suresh Mohapatra vrs.
Smt. Kamala Mohapatra and anther : reported in
2017(II) CLR-45 that, when a petition is filed for
setting aside a compromise decree passed in a suit in
the Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud, the same can
only be made by filing a petition under Order-23,
Rule-3-A of the C.P.C. in the same court, in which,
the compromise decree in Lok Adalat was passed,
but, not through a separate suit or through an
appeal.
(iii) In a case between Dutti Barik(since dead)
through L.Rs. vrs. Minati Barik and others
decided on 10.02.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14847 of
2008 that, a compromise decree passed in a suit in
Lok Adalat can be challenged only by filing a petition
under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, that too on very limited grounds
enumerated therein.
(iv) In a case between Bharvagi Constructions
and another vrs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and
others : reported in 2017(II) CLR (S.C.)-825 relying
upon the decision between State of Punjab vrs.
Jalour Singh : reported in (2008) 2 SCC-660 that, in
order to challenge a compromise decree passed in a
suit in the Lok Adalat, a writ petition under Articles
226 or / and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is
maintainable, but, not a separate suit or an appeal.
(v) In a case between Sadara Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vrs.
Lok Adalat and others. : reported in 2025(2) Civil
Court Cases-042(A.P.) (D.B.) that, a third party to a
suit can challenge the compromise decree passed in
suit in the Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud, only by
way of a writ petition, if special circumstances are
made for challenging the same(Para No.9).
(vi) In a case between Sakina Sultanali
Sunesara(Momin) vrs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin
Jamat Samaj and others : reported in 2025(3)
CCC(S.C.) -4 that, in order to challenge a compromise
decree passed in a suit in the Lok Adalat, only a
limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India remains available.
8. When, the position of law on this aspect for
challenging a compromise decree passed in a suit in the
Lok Adalat like the compromise decree passed in the
suit vide T.S. No.110 of 1993 at hand on dated
21.03.1993(Annexure-4) has already been clarified by
the Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions
that, even a third party to the alleged compromise
decree passed in a suit in a Lok Adalat like the Opposite
Party No.1 in this revision(appellant in RFA No.40 of
2006) cannot challenge the said compromise decree
passed in the Lok Aalat by preferring an appeal like RFA
No.40 of 2006, then at this juncture, it is held that, the
RFA No.40 of 2006 filed by the Opposite Party No.1 in
this revision was not entertainable/maintainable under
law.
9. For which, the learned 1st appellate court should
not have rejected to the petition dated
21.03.2016(Annexure-6) of the petitioner in this revision
through the impugned order dated 06.03.2023
(Annxure-1).
Therefore, the impugned order dated
06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006
by the learned District Judge, Cuttack cannot be
sustainable under law.
10. For which, there is justification under law for
making interference with the impugned order dated
06.03.2023(Annexure-1) passed in RFA No.40 of 2006
by the learned District Judge, Cuttack through this
revision filed by the petitioner.
11. As such, there is merit in this revision filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
12. In result, this revision filed by the petitioner is
allowed on contest, but, without cost.
13. The impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexur-1)
passed in RFA No.40 of 2006 by the learned District
Judge, Cuttack is set aside.
The petition dated 21.03.2016(Annexure-6) filed by
the petitioner (Respondent No.1 in RFA No.40 of 2006)
in RFA No.40 of 2006 is allowed.
The appeal vide RFA No.40 of 2006 is
rejected/dismissed, as the same was not entertainable
under law.
However, the appellant in RFA No.40 of
2006(Opposite Party No.1 in this revision) may
approach an appropriate forum as per law to challenge
the compromise decree passed on dated 21.03.1993
(Annexure-4) in the Lok Adalat in the suit vide T.S.
No.110 of 1993.
14. As such, this civil revision filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(A.C.BEHERA)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 5th of January, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
