Khajani vs Shakuntla And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 8270 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Khajani vs Shakuntla And Ors on 19 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052381



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
115                                                          2024:PHHC:052381

                                                  CR-6819-2016 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 19.04.2024

KHAJANI                                                      ..Petitioner

                                    Versus

SHAKUNTLA AND ORS                                            ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:     Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate
             with Ms. Kashish, Advocater
             for respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. In this case, the defendant while alleging that a fraud has been

played upon her by the plaintiffs, challenges the correctness of the award

passed by Lok Adalat-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Nuh at

Mewat on 23.11.2013.

2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

once an award has been passed by the Lok Adalat, the only remedy available

to the aggrieved party is to file petition under Section 227 of the

Constitution of India. He relies upon the judgment passed in Bar Council of

India Vs. Union of India, 2012 (8) SCC 243.

3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the parties.

4. The petitioner, as already noticed, alleges fraud. She claims that

some other lady impersonated her by signing the alleged deed of settlement.

This matter would require detailed inquiry after permitting the parties to lead

evidence.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052381

2024:PHHC:052381 CR-6819-2016 (O&M) -2-

5. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel representing

the petitioner is relating to the awards passed by the permanent Lok Adalat.

In this case, the award has not been passed by the permanent Lok Adalat. In

fact, it is an award passed under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority

Act, 1987. At that point of time, the suit filed by the respondents was

pending.

6. In these circumstances, the remedy for the petitioner is to either

file a separate suit or file an application before the same Court.

7. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

April 19th, 2024                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes/No
Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                       2 of 2