SHALU Vs. VINEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT , herein, filed Civil Suit No. 815 -C of 2012 against the petitioner, herein, for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to 1/2 share of all the benefits of land acquisition, in respect of land, more fully described in the cause title of the plaint. He also sought declaration that award No. 12 dated 12.1.2011 and the award/decree dated 15.2.2011, passed by Shri Sukhpreet Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, in Civil Suit No. 90 -C of 2011 titled 'Arun and Shalu v. Kavita,' in favour of the petitioner qua 1/2 share, is based on misrepresentation and wrong facts, to deprive the respondent of the above said benefits of his share, and the same is not binding on his rights and is liable to be set aside. Petitioner, herein, who is defendant before the trial Court, on her putting appearance in the suit, filed an application under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 22E of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), that parties are wife and husband, respectively, and the respondent filed the suit seeking declaration, wherein, challenge is to the award dated 15.2.2011, passed by Shri Sukhpreet Singh, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, in Civil Suit No. 90 -C of 2011. She further averred that she has already moved an application against the respondent and his family members before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka (Punjab), which is under investigation. Now, to counter that complaint moved by her, the respondent, herein, has filed the suit, that is devoid of merit.

(2.) IT was further averred in the application that the entire suit is based upon the award dated 15.2.2011, and it is barred under the provisions of the Act, as permanent Lok Adalat is only an authority to help settlement of disputes between the parties, in conciliation proceedings. If no conciliation is possible, the permanent Lok Adalat can record failure and close the complaint, leaving the parties to approach appropriate forum or Court, for relief. Petitioner further averred in the application that the permanent Lok Adalat has certain characteristics of regular Lok Adalat, constituted under Chapter VI of the Act. The provisions of the Act are only supplementary and alternate to other remedies. It is up to the parties to opt to invoke the jurisdiction of the permanent Lok Adalat, constituted under the Act, or to pursue other legal remedies. So long as, the permanent Lok Adalat is seized of the matter, no other Court or authority can allow the party to invoke its jurisdiction, for deciding the same dispute. The remedies available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are available on very limited grounds.

(3.) THIS application, on the other hand, was opposed by the respondent by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the civil suit was decided by the civil Court and not by the Lok Adalat, as there is no mentions of designation of the Court as Lok Adalat, either in the title of the award or signature and seal and designation as Lok Adalat. The suit was filed by the then plaintiffs against the defendant as a civil Court and the defendant appeared and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs of the suit. There was no settlement or compromise between the parties in the Court and there was no order sheet of the Court for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat or converting the Court itself into Lok Adalat. The parties were never informed that the matter is being dealt with as Lok Adalat. Instead of passing the judgment and decree on admission, the Court has passed the order/judgment and the word 'award' has only been used once in the order. So, it cannot be considered as the award under the Act, at all.