SHASHI PRATEEK Vs. CHARAN SINGH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-9-2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), muzaffar Nagar purporting to be as Lok adalat in Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner moved under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. and refused to set aside the award dated 30-4-2006 passed by lok Adalat in Original Suit No. 852 of 2005.

(2.) IT is stated that Original Suit No. 852 of 2005 was instituted by respondent No. 1 father of the petitioner by impleading her brother Dr. Ravi Kant as defendant No. 1 and petitioner as defendant No. 2. On 30-4-2006 the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise alleged to have been signed by the petitioner as defendant No. 2 in suit before the Lok Adalat held on that day. It is stated that in fact the petitioner had neither any knowledge of the institution of said suit nor she had engaged any counsel nor any compromise application was moved and signed by her nor she was present before the court or Lok Adalat on 30-4-2006 and signed said compromise before the Lok adalat, as such no award could be made by the Lok Adalat. When on 24-3-2007 the petitioner came to know about the said fraudulent compromise decree then she filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with section 151 C. P. C. for setting aside the said compromise decree which was registered as case No. 57 of 2007. On 24-10-2007 the plaintiff opp. party No. 1 has filed his objection. Thereafter abruptly on 26-8-2008 the plaintiff opp. party No. 1 has moved an application 112 Ga praying that Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007 be dismissed as not maintainable. Thereupon vide impugned order dated 3-9-2008 Civil Judge (Senior Division)Muzaffar Nagar has dismissed the aforesaid case No. 57 of 2007 holding that the petitioner's counsel had signed the compromise on her behalf cannot be faulted with and application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. is also not maintainable, hence this petition.

(3.) SRI Ravi Kant learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Naveen Sinha for respondent No. 2 have contended that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in P. T. Thomas v. Thomas Job 2005 (3) AWC 3048 : (AIR 2005 SC 3575) (SC), writ petition against the award of Lok Adalat and impugned order are hot maintainable, wherein Three Judges Bench of Apex Court had held that the order passed by Lok Adalat constituted under the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, herein after referred to as the Act-1987, cannot be called in question either in appeal or revision or even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.