# Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors v. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 1306
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-12
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 3600 of 2019
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saumitra-devi-ors-v-m-s-s-g-rockbuilt-pvt-ltd-janakpuri-new-delhi-anr-48415
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Law
-
LOK
Adalat
Act,1987
-
Petitioners entered into agreement to sale-later
cancelled
the
agreement
by
a
noticeRespondents filed a suit for specific performance
of contract-7 issues framed-date fixed for
deciding issue no. 4 and for disposal of
compromise-none of the parties appeared to
verify the compromise before Lok Adalat-but
award was passed-Review-dismissed -present
petition-settlement between parties can be
challenged if violation of procedure u/s 20 of
Act,1987-balatant violation of Regulation 9, 10
(2), and (3) of Regulation of 2009-in referring
the dispute to Lok Adalat-violation of Rules and
Regulation by a single member in purported
capacity of Lok Adalat.
Petition allowed. (E-9)
4 All. Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr. 1307
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest on the respondent and, therefore,
the respondent was not entitled to any relief
in the suit. Unfortunately, on evidence in
this case, the respondent/defendant did not
do anything and did not even challenge the
evidence of the appellant that he had
become owner of the Will. Merely because
the evidence of respondent/defendant and
Prabhakar Rao (PW- 2) was not repeated
all over again, it cannot be held that the
appellant/plaintiff could be non-suited on
this ground."

28.

In
view
of
the
above
pronouncement of law on the subject, since
no proprietary right in the estate of the
deceased would be going to be determined
under Order XXII rule 5, whether the
application for substitution of respondent
no. 1 is allowed or respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4
are allowed in respect of the deceased
Goverdhan Dutt, it will hardly affect the
merit of the suit and particularly claim of
petitioner
in
his
suit
for
perpetual
injunction.

29. In view of the above, I do not find
any fault with the order of trial court
affirmed in revision that both the parties be
impleaded for the purposes of continuation
of the suit proceedings so as to bring them
to their logical end. Even in the absence of
legal representatives being set up, the court
could have appointed in its discretion
Administrator General or any other person
to represent the estate of late Goverdhan
Dutt who is defendant in the suit of the
present petitioner as the very object of
provision contained in Order XXII is to
continue orderly the suit proceedings and to
bring the suit proceedings to their logical
end.

30. Hence, no interference is
warranted in exercise of power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
with the orders impugned.

31. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly rejected with no order as to
cost.
----------
(2022)04ILR A1306
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 3600 of 2019

Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri,
New Delhi & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rakesh Pande, Sri Dileep Chandra
Mathur, Sri Prem Shankar Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Sri A.K.
Srivastava

Civil
Law
-
LOK
Adalat
Act,1987
-
Petitioners entered into agreement to sale-later
cancelled
the
agreement
by
a
noticeRespondents filed a suit for specific performance
of contract-7 issues framed-date fixed for
deciding issue no. 4 and for disposal of
compromise-none of the parties appeared to
verify the compromise before Lok Adalat-but
award was passed-Review-dismissed -present
petition-settlement between parties can be
challenged if violation of procedure u/s 20 of
Act,1987-balatant violation of Regulation 9, 10
(2), and (3) of Regulation of 2009-in referring
the dispute to Lok Adalat-violation of Rules and
Regulation by a single member in purported
capacity of Lok Adalat.
Petition allowed. (E-9)
4 All. Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr. 1307
List of Cases cited:
1. Estate Officer Vs Colonel H.Vs Mankotia
(Retired), 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 597

2. P T Thomas Vs Thomas Job, 2005 (10) JT
304
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dileep Chandra Mathur,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
praying for setting-aside the order dated
14.05.2016 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge
(S.D.), Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Original
Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G. Rockbuild
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others.
Further prayer has been made to set-aside
the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by
Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, in Review Petition No. 04 of 2016
in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S
S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep
Kumar and others.

3. The brief facts pleaded in the
petition are that the defendants/petitioners
entered into a registered agreement to sale
dated
09.04.2008
with
the
plaintiffs/respondents on certain terms and
conditions.
The
defendants/petitioners
cancelled the agreement to sale by means
of notice dated 13.10.2011. On 02.11.2011,
the plaintiffs/respondents instituted an
Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011 praying for
a decree of specific performance of
contract of sale dated 09.04.2008 against
the defendants/petitioners. An application
under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed by
the defendants/petitioners before the trial
court praying for rejection of the plaint of
the original suit aforesaid.

4. It is alleged in the petition that the
plaintiffs/respondents under undue pressure
entered
into
compromise
with
the
defendants/petitioners
for
specific
performance of contract of sale dated
09.04.2008 and the same was filed and
allegedly
verified
by
the
court
on
20.02.2016. On 23.02.2016, the trial court
framed 7 issues for adjudication in the suit
and decided issue no. 3 on the same date.
The date of 28.03.2016 was fixed for
deciding issue no. 4 which was decided and
the case was directed to be fixed for
14.05.2016 for disposal of compromise
before Lok Adalat. None of the parties
appeared before the Lok Adalat to verify
the compromise or accept the terms of
compromise but on 14.05.2016, the award
was passed. Against the aforesaid award
dated 14.05.2016 which was passed by the
court in the capacity of Lok Adalat, the
petitioners filed a review petition. The
plaintiffs/respondents filed their objection
to the review petition on 30.07.2016. The
review petition was dismissed by the order
dated 13.11.2018.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
defendants/petitioners has submitted that
the trial court passed the award dated
14.05.2016 assuming the powers of Lok
Adalat which is against the provisions of
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He
has submitted that as per Section 19, atleast
two members are required to decide the
compromise or settlement between the
parties in Lok Adalat but in the present
case, it has not been complied and the case
has been decided by Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar.
He has further submitted that under Section
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20 of the aforesaid act, one of the parties is
required to make an application to the court
to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for
settlement and if the court is satisfied that
there is chance of settlement between the
parties, sends the matter to Lok Adalat. In
the present case, the trial court without
recording any satisfaction, decided the case
acting as Lok Adalat. As per Section 20 of
the Act aforesaid, the cases can only be
referred to Lok Adalat after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
parties. In the present case, none of the
parties made any application. As per
Regulation 13 (6) of the National Legal
Services Authority Regulation, 2009, Lok
Adalat shall not determine reference at its
own motion but only on the basis of
settlement arrived at between the parties
before it. As per Regulation 17 aforesaid,
the award passed by Lok Adalat has to be
verified by all the parties and the Lok
Adalat is required to mention about the
refund of court fees. If the counsels are not
present, the members of Lok Adalat are
required to identify the parties and before
affixing their photographs are required to
verify
their
signatures.
It
has
been
submitted that the award passed by the Lok
Adalat is illegal and deserves to be setaside. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Estate Officer Vs.
Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired), 2021 0
Supreme (SC) 597 in support of his
arguments.

6. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondents has opposed
the arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. He has submitted that the present
petition is not maintainable in view of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
P T Thomas Vs. Thomas Job, 2005 (10)
JT 304, whereby the Apex Court has held
that award of Lok Adalat is final and no
appeal or writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India lies against the
same.

7. After hearing the rival submissions,
this Court finds that before proceeding
further with this case, a look at the relevant
sections
of
The
Legal
Services
Authorities
Act,
1987
and
relevant
regulations
of
The
National
Legal
Services
Authority
(Lok
Adalat)
Regulations, 2009, would be relevant for
deciding present dispute and they are being
quoted hereinbelow :-

The Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 :-

19.
Organization
of
Lok
Adalats-- (1) Every State Authority or
District Authority or the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee or every High
Court Legal Services Committee or, as the
case may be, Taluk Legal Services
Committee may organise Lok Adalats at
such intervals and places and for exercising
such jurisdiction and for such areas as it
thinks fit.

(2) Every Lok Adalat organised
for an area shall consist of such number of

(a) serving or retired judicial
officers; and

(b) other persons, of the area as
may be specified by the State Authority or
the District Authority or the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee or the High
Court Legal Services Committee, or as the
case may be, the Taluk Legal Services
Committee, organising such Lok Adalats.

(3)
The
experience
and
qualifications of other persons referred to
in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok
Adalats organised by the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee shall be such as
may
be
preseribed
by
the
Central
4 All. Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr. 1309
Government in consultation with the Chief
Justice of India. .

(4)
The
experience
and
qualifications of other persons referred to
in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok
Adalats other than referred to in subsection (3) shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court.

(5) A Lok Adalat shall have
jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a
compromise or settlement between the
parties to a dispute in respect of any case
pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling
within the jurisdiction of, and is not
brought before, any court for which the
Lok Adalat is organised.

Provided that the Lok Adalat
shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any
case or matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law.

20. Cognizance of Cases by Lok
Adalats-- (1) Where in any case referred to
in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section
19- (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (i)
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an
application to the court, for referring the
case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if
such court is prima facie satisfied that there
are chances of such settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the
matter is an appropriate one to be taken
cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court
shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause
(b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court
except
after
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the Authority or Committee
organising the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of
an application from any, one of the parties
to any matter refeèrred to in clause (ti) of
sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such
matter needs to be determined by a Lok
Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat,
for determination:

Provided that no matter shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat except after
giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the other party.

(3) Where any case is referred to
a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or
where a reference has been made to it
under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall
proceed to dispose of the case or matter and
arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while
determining any reference before it under
this Act, act with utmost expedition to
arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties and shall be guided by
the principles of justice equity, fair play and
other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, the record of the
case shall be returned by it to the court,
from which the reterence received under
sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance
with law.

(6) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, in a matter referred
to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall
advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.

(7) Where the record of the case
is returned under sub-section (5) to the
court, such court shall proceed to deal with
such case from the stage which was
reached before such reference under subsection (1).
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The
National
Legal
Services
Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations,
2009 :-

5. Notice to parties concerned :-
The Member-Secretary of Secretary of the
High Court Legal Services Committee or
District Authority or, as the case may be,
the Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services
Committee convening and organizing the
Lok Adalat shall inform every party
concerned whose case is referred to the
Adalat, well in time so as to afford him an
opportunity to prepare himself for the Lok
Adalat:

Provided that such notice may be
dispensed with, if the Court while referring
the case to the Lok Adalat fixes or informs
the date and time of the Lok Adalat in the
presence of the parties, or their advocates:

Provided further that if a party is
not willing to refer their case to Lok Adalat,
the case may be considered on its merits by
the Court concerned.

6. Composition of Lok Adalat:-
(a) At State Authority Level - The Member
Secretary organising the Lok Adalat shall
constitute benches of the Lok Adalats, each
bench comprising of a sitting or retired Judge
of the High Court or a serving or retired
judicial officer and any one or two of the
following:-

(i)
a
member
of
the
legal
profession;

(ii) a social worker of repute who is
engaged in the upliftment of the weaker
sections of the people, including the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes,
women, children, rural and urban labour and
interested in the implementation of legal
services schenmes or programmes.

(iii) a professional from the field
related to the subject matter of the Lok
Adalat; and

(iv) a mediator or a professional or
a serving or retired senior executive.

(b) At High Court Level:- The
Secretary of the High Court Legal Services
Committee organizing the Lok Adalat shall
constitute benches of the Lok Adalats, each
bench comprising of a sitting or retired Judge
of the High Court or a serving or retired
Judicial Officer and any one or 'two of the
following: a member of the legal profession;
(ii) a social worker belonging to the category
as mentioned in item (ii) of sub-para (a)
above; (iii) a professional from the field
related to the subject matter of the Lok
Adalat; and (iv) a mediator or a professional
or a serving or retired senior executive.

(c) At
District
Level:-
The
Secretary of the District Authority organizing
the Lok Adalats shall constitute benches of
the Lok Adalats, each bench comprising of a
sitting or retired judicial officer and any one
or two of the following- (i) a member of the
legal profession; (ii) a social worker
belonging to the category as mentioned in
item (ii) of sub-para (a) above or a person
engaged in para-legal activities of the area,
preferably a Woman; (iii) a professional from
the field related to the subject matter of the
Lok Adalat; and (iv) a mediator or a
professional or a serving or retired senior
executive.

(d)
At
Taluk
Level:-
The
Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services
Committee organizing the Lok Adalat shall
constitute benches of the Lok Adalat, each
bench comprising of a sitting or retired
judicial officer and any one or two of the
following:-

(i)
a
member
of
the
legal
profession;

(ii) a social worker belonging to the
category as mentioned in item(ii) of sub-para
(a) above or a person engaged in para-legal
activities of the area, preferably a Woman,

(iii) a professional from the field
related to the subject matter of the Lok
Adalat; and
4 All. Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr. 1311

(iv) a mediator or a professional
or a serving or retired senior executive.

7. Allotment of cases to Lok
Adalats:- (1) The Member Secretary, the
Secretary of the High Court Legal Services
Committee, the District Authority or
Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services
Committee, as the case may be, shall assign
specific cases to each bench of the Lok
Adalat.

(2) The Member Secretary, the
Secretary of the High Court Legal Services
Committee or the District Authority or
Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services
Committee, as the case may be, may
prepare a cause list for each bench of the
Lok Adalat and intimate the same to all
Concerned at least two days before the date
of holding of the Lok Adalat. Every bench
of the Lok Adalat shall make sincere efforts
to bring about a conciliated settlement in
every case put before it without bringing
about any kind of coercion, threat, undue
influence, allurement or misrepresentation.

8. Holding of Lok Adalats- Lok
Adalats may be organised at such time and
place and on such days, including holidays
as the State Authority, High Court Legal
Services Committee, District Authority, or
the Taluk Legal Services Committee, as the
casc may be, organising the Lok Adalat
deems appropriate.

9. Jurisdiction of Lok Adalats.- Lok
Adalats shall have the power only to help
the parties to arrive at a compromise or
settlement between the parties to a dispute
and, while so doing, it shall not issue any
direction or order in respect of such dispute
between the parties.

10. Reference of cases and matters.
-(1) Lok Adalat shall get jurisdiction to deal
with a case only when a court of competent
jurisdiction orders the case to be referred in
the manner prescribed in Section 20 of the
Act or under Section 89 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

(1A) A pre-litigation matter may
be referred to the Lok Adalat by the
concerned Legal Services Institution on the
request of any of the parties after giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the other party.

(2) A mechanical reference of
pending cases to Lok Adalat shall be
avoided and the referring court shall, prima
facie satisfy itself that there are chances of
settlement of the case through Lok Adalat
and the case is appropriate to be referred to
Lok Adalat:

Provided that matters relating to
divorce and criminal cases which are not
compoundable under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall not be
referred to Lok Adalat.

(3) In a pending case where only
one of the parties had made application to
the court for referring the case to Lok
Adalat, or where the court suo motu is
satisfied that the case is appropriate to take
cognizance by Lok Adalat, the case shall
not be referred to the Lok Adalat except
after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the parties.

(4) The need based continuous
Lok Adalats may be constituted in order to
facilitate regular reference and timely
disposal of cases.

12. Pre-Litigation matters. - (1) In a
Pre-litigation matter it may be ensured that
the court for which a Lok Adalat is
organised has territorial jurisdiction to
adjudicate in the matter.

(2)
Before
referring
a
Prelitigation
matter
to
Lok Adalat
the
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority concerned or Committee, as the
case may be, shall give a reasonable
hearing to the parties concerned.

Provided that the version of each
party, shall be obtained by the Authority
concerned or, as the case may be, the
Committee for placing it before the Lok Adalat,

(3) An award based on settlement
between the parties can be challenged only on
violation of procedure prescribed in section 20
of the Act by filing a petition under articles 226
and 227 of the Constitütion of India.

13. Procedure in Lok Adalats.- (1)
Members of Lok Adalat have the role of
statutory conciliators only and have no judicial
role and they, mutatis mutandis, may follow the
procedure laid down in sections 67 to 76 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of
1996).

(2) Members of Lok Adalat shall not
pressurise or coerce any of the parties, to
compromise or settle cases or matters, either
directly or indirectly.

(3) In a Lok Adalat the members
shall discuss the subject matter with the parties
for arriving at a just settlement or compromise
and such members of the Lok Adalat shall assist
the parties in an independent and impartial
manner in their attempt to reach amicable
settlement of their dispute:

Provided that if it found necessary
the assistance of an independent person or a
trained mediator may also be availed of the by
Lok Adalat.

(4) Members of Lok Adalat shall be
guided by principles of natural justice, equity,
fairplay, objectivity, giving consideration to,
among other things, the rights and obligations
of the parties, custom and usages and the
circumstances surrounding the dispute.

(5) The Lok Adalat may conduct
the proceedings in such a manner as it
considers appropriate taking into account
the circumstances of the case, wishes of the
parties including any request by a party to
the Lok Adalat to hear oral statements, and
the need for a speedy settlement of the
dispute.

(6) The Lok Adalat shall not
determine a reference, at its own instance,
but shall determine only on the basis of a
compromise or settlement between the
parties by making an award in terms of the
compromise or settlement arrived at:

Provided that no Lok Adalat has
the power to hear the parties to adjudicate
their dispute as a regular court:

Provided further that the aware of
the Lok Adalat is neither a verdict nor an
opinion arrived at by any decision making
process.

16. Communication between
Lok Adalat and parties. - (1) A Lok
Adalat may invite the parties to nmeet it or
may communicate with it oraly or in
writing and it may meet or communicate
with the parties together or with each of
them separately. The factual information
concerning the dispute received from a
party may be disclosed to the other party in
order that the other party may have the
opportunity to present any explanation:

Provided that the Lok Adalat
shall not disclose any information, if one of
the party desires to keep it confidential.
(2) Each party may on his own initiative or
at the invitation of the Lok Adalat, submit
suggestions for settlement of the dispute.

(3) When it appears to the Lok
Adalat that there exists elements of a
settlement which may be acceptable to the
parties, the terms of a possible settlement
may be formulated by the Lok Adalat and
given to the parties for their observations
and modifications, if any, suggested by the
parties can be taken into consideration and
terms of a possible settlement nmay be re-
formulated by the Lok Adalat.

(4)
If
the
parties
reach
a
compromise or settlement of the dispute,
4 All. Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr. 1313
the Lok Adalat may draw up or assist the
parties in drawing up the compromise or
settlement.

17. Award - (1) Drawing up of
the award is merely an administrative act
by incorporating the terms of settlement or
compromise agreed by parties under the
guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat.

(2) When both parties sign or
affix their thumb impression and the
members of the Lok Adalat countersign it,
it becomes an award. (see a specimen at
Appendix-1) Every award of the Lok
Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and
shall be written in regional language used
in the local courts or in English. It shall
also contain particulars of the case viz.,
case number, name of court and names of
parties, date of receipt, register number
assigned to the case in the permanent
Register (maintained as provided under
Regulation- 20) and date of settlement.
Wherever the parties are represented by
counsel, they should also be required to
sign the settlement or award before the
members of the Lok Adalat affix their
signature.

(3) In cases referred to Lok
Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned
in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner
is entitled to refund of the court fees
remitted.

(4) Where the parties are not
accompanied or represented by counsel, the
members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify
the identity of parties, before recording the
settlement.

(5) Member of the Lok Adalat
shall ensure that the parties affix their
signatures only after fully understanding
the terms of settlement arrived at and
recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat
shall also satisfy themselves about the
following before affixing their signatures:
that the terms of settlement are not
unreasonable or illegal or one-Sided; and
(a) that the parties have entered into the
settlement voluntarily and not on account
of (b) any threat, coercion or undue
influence.

(6) Members of the Lok Adalat
should affix their signatures only in
settlement reached before them and should
avoid affixing signatures to settlement
reached by the parties outside the Lok
Adalat with the assistance of some third
parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are
not used by unscrupulous parties to commit
fraud, forgery, etc.

(7) Lok Adalat shall not grant
any bail or a divorce by mutual consent.

(8) The original award shall form
part of the judicial records (in pre-litigation
matter, the original award may be kept with
the Legal Services Authority or committee,
concerned) and a copy of the award shall
be given to each of the parties duly
certifying them to be true by the officer
designated by the Member-Secretary or
Secretary of the High Court Legal Services
Committee or District Legal Services
Authority or, as the case may be- the
Chairman
of
Taluk
Legal
Services
Committees free of cost and the official
seal
of
the Authority
concerned
or
Committee shall be affixed on all awards.

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid
sections of the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act
of 1987') and the National Legal Services
Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009,
(hereinafter referred to as ''Regulations of
2009'), it is clear that as per Section 19 of
the Act of 1987, every Lok Adalat is to
consist of two members as stated in Section
19 (2) (a) (b) of the Act. As per Section 19
(5), a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to
determine and to arrive at a compromise or
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a settlement between the parties to a
dispute. As per Section 20 (1), a case can
be referred to the Lok Adalat only if one of
the parties to the dispute makes an
application to the Court, for referring the
same or if the Court is satisfied that the
matter is an appropriate one to be taken
cognizance by the Lok Adalat, the court
can refer the same to the Lok Adalat.
However, the proviso to Section 20 (1) is
very clear that no case shall be referred to
Lok Adalat without the consent of the
parties or on the direction of the Court
except
after
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity of hearing. The certified copy
of the order sheet of the Original Suit No.
1323 of 2011 which is on record shows that
on 20.02.2016, the disputed compromise
was filed before the trial court. On
23.02.2016, the trial court framed 7 issues
for adjudication in the suit and decided
only issue no. 3 on the same date. The case
was directed to be listed on 28.03.2016. On
28.03.2016,
issue
no.
4,
regarding
insufficiency of court fees was decided by
the trial court and one line was added in the
order directing the case to be listed on
14.05.2016 before the Lok Adalat for
disposal of the compromise between the
parties. On 14.05.2016, by a nine line
order, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar, recorded
the finding that the parties are present. The
case is decided in terms of the compromise
paper no. 61 Ka.1/1, 61 Ka.1/1/2, 61 Ka.1/2
and the compromise was directed to be
made part of the decree. The first line of the
order records that the record of the case has
been put up before the Lok Adalat. This
Court does not finds signature of either of
the parties or their counsel on the order
sheet of the Court dated 28.03.2016 and
14.05.2016 which shows that the orders
were passed behind the back of the parties
and their counsels.

9. Regulation 5 of Regulations of
2009 clearly provides that the Member
Secretary of the Lok Adalat shall inform
every party concerned, whose case is
referred to Lok Adalat, well in time, so as
to afford him an opportunity to prepare
himself for the Lok Adalat. The only
explanation is proviso 1 to Regulation 5
which provides that notice may be
dispensed with, if the Court while referring
the case to Lok Adalat fixes or informs the
date and time of the Lok Adalat in the
presence of the parties, or their advocates.
In the present case as discussed above,
neither the parties nor their counsels were
present
before
the
Lok
Adalat
on
14.05.2016 when the trial court passed the
order of referring the case to Lok Adalat.

10. Regulation 6 of Regulations of
2009 reiterates that the Benches of Lok
Adalat would comprise of two members as
mentioned in Section 19 (2) of the Act of
1987. In the present case, only the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Gautam Buddh Nagar, has signed the award
dated
14.05.2016
which
cannot
be
considered to be in accordance with
Section 19 (2) and Regulation 6 (c) of
Regulations of 2009.

11. Regulation 7 of Regulations of
2009 provides that the Member Secretary
shall assign specific cases to each bench of
the Lok Adalat. In the present case, the
order of assignment of the case to the same
bench which referred the matter to the Lok
Adalat has not been explained by the
counsel for the respondents.

12. Regulation 9 of Regulations of
2009 provides that Lok Adalats shall have
the power only to help the parties to arrive
at a compromise or settlement and as per
Section 10 of Regulations of 2009, a
4 All. Smt. Saumitra Devi & Ors. Vs. M/S S.G. Rockbuilt Pvt. Ltd., Janakpuri, New Delhi & Anr. 1315
mechanical reference of pending cases to
Lok Adalat is to be avoided and the
referring court shall, prima facie, satisfy
itself that there are chances of settlement of
the case through Lok Adalat and the case is
appropriate to be referred to Lok Adalat.
No such compliance is evident from the
material on record and the order sheet of
the court below.

13. Regulation 10 (3) provides that
the Court will not refer any case to Lok
Adalat except after giving reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties. In
this case, no such opportunity was granted
as discussed above.

14. In the present case, it is clear that on
28.03.2016, the issue no. 3 framed in the suit
was decided and the case was directed to be
listed before Lok Adalat on 14.05.2016.
Therefore, there is blatant violation of
Regulation 9, Regulation 10(2) and (3) of
Regulations of 2009 by the trial court in
referring the dispute to the Lok Adalat. As per
Regulation 12 (3) of Regulations of 2009,
there is clear provision that an award based
on settlement between the parties can be
challenged only on violation of procedure
prescribed in Section 20 of the Act of 1987
by filing a petition under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. Hence, there
cannot be any dispute that this petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable before this Court in view of
Regulation 12 (3) of Regulations of 2009.
The argument to the contrary raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent relying
upon the judgment of the Apex court in the
case of P.T. Thomas (supra), is of no avail
since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case did not considered the
regulations laid down in the Regulations of
2009 and particularly Regulation 12 (3).

15. Regulation 13 (3) of Regulations of
2009 provides that the members of the Lok
Adalat shall discuss the subject matter with
the parties for arriving at a just settlement or
compromise and they shall assist the parties
in an independent and impartial manner in
their attempt to reach amicable settlement of
their dispute. In the present case, no
settlement or compromise was arrived at
before the Lok Adalat. The compromise
dated 20.02.2020 was filed earlier and the
court/Lok Adalat simply directed that the suit
stands decided in terms of the aforesaid
compromise.

16. No compromise with the assistance
of the members of the Lok Adalat was arrived
at all before the Lok Adalat.

17. Regulation 13 (6) clearly bars the
Lok Adalat from determining a reference at
its own instance and it has been directed to
determine the same only on the basis of
compromise or settlement between the
parties by making an award in terms of the
compromise or settlement arrived at.

18. Regulation 17 of Regulations of
2009 provides that drawing up of the award
is
merely
an
administrative
act
by
incorporating the terms of settlement or
compromise agreed by the parties under the
guidance and assistance of the Lok Adalat.
As per sub-clause (2) to Regulation 17 of
Regulations of 2009, only when both the
parties signed or affixed their thumb
impression and the members of Lok Adalat
countersigned it, it becomes an award as
per specimen at Appendix- I of the
regulations, which is quoted below :-

APPENDIX-I

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

HELD AT ................
1316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[Organized
by.........Authority/..........Committee
under

 Section
19,
of
Legal
Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (Central

Act)]

Petitioner/Plaintiff/Complainant :

Defendant/Respondent :

No. of proceedings of the
......................
Court/Authority/Committee

Present :

Names of Judicial Officer/

Retired Judicial Officer :

Name of Members :

(1)

(2)

AWARD

The dispute between the parties
having been referred for determination to
the Lok Adalat and the parties having
compromise/settled the case/matter, the
following award is passed in terms of the
settlement :

..............................................................
..........

..............................................................
..........

..............................................................
..........

......................................................

The parties are informed that the
court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall
be refunded.

Petitioner/Plaintiff/Complainant

Defendant/Respondent

Judicial Officer

Member Member

Date :

(Seal
of
the
Authority/Committee)

19. The sub-clause (3) of Regulation
17 of Regulations of 2009 provides that in
cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it
shall be mentioned in the award that the
plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to refund of
the court fees remitted. Sub-clause (4)
further provides that where the parties are
not accompanied or represented by their
counsels, the members of Lok Adalat shall
also verify and identify the parties.

20. In the present case, it is clear that
no award has been drawn, as per Appendix-
I. No order of refund of court fees has been
passed nor the signatures of the parties has
been verified by the members of Lok
Adalat before recording the compromise or
settlement
between
the
parties.
The
members of the Lok Adalat were required
to ensure that the parties affixed their
signatures only after fully understanding
the terms of settlement arrived at as per
sub-clause (5) of Regulation 17 of
Regulations of 2009 and the settlement is
not unreasonable, illegal nor one-sided and
the parties have entered into settlement
voluntarily and not on account of any
threat, coercion or undue influence. The
Members of Lok Adalat have been
cautioned under Regulation 17 (6) to
ensure that Lok Adalats are not used by
unscrupulous parties to commit fraud,
forgery, etc.

21. From the above consideration, it is
clear that the impugned award was passed
in gross violation of the provisions of the
Act of 1987 and the Regulations of 2009 by
a single member in the purported capacity
of Lok Adalat. The petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is hence
maintainable in view of Regulation 12 (3)
of Regulations of 2009 since there is gross
violation of procedure prescribed under
Section 20 of the Act of 1987 and also the
4 All. Hasmukh Prajapati Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar
1317
regulations framed in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 29 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act,
1987, duly
notified
vide
notification
F.No.L/28/09/NALSA.

22. In view of the above, the
impugned award dated 14.05.2016 passed
by
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division),
Gautam
Buddh
Nagar,
in
Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011, M/S S.G.
Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar
and others, is hereby quashed along with
order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the same
court on the Review Petition No. 04 of
2016 in Original Suit No. 1323 of 2011,
M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep
Kumar and others.

23. The petition is accordingly,
allowed.

24. The record of the suit shall be
placed before the competent court for
decision in accordance with law after
giving adequate opportunity of hearing to
the parties. The record shall be placed
before the court concerned on 26.04.2022.
Both the parties are represented before this
Court through their counsels and hence,
they will appear before the trial court
personally or through their counsels on the
next date fixed.
----------

(2022)04ILR A1317
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6890 of 2021
Hasmukh Prajapati ...Petitioner
Versus
Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Gautam Budh
Nagar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Veerendra Kumar Shukla, Sri Vidhu
Prakash Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Anurag Khana (Sr. Adv.), Sri Rohan
Gupta, Ms. Kriti Singh

Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 -Arbitral award passed by sole
arbitrator at New Delhi-proceeding initiated u/s
34 of Act before Commercial Court, District
Gautam Budh Nagar-order challenged-if an
application under Part I made in court-that court
alone will have the jurisdiction over arbitral
proceeding- Application u/s 11 was application
under Part I of the Act,1996-section 42 will be
attracted-Impugned order legal.
Petition dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:
1. BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs NHPC Ltd., 2019 0
Supreme (SC) 1350

2. Roger Shashoua Vs Mukesh Sharma & ors.,
(2017) 14 SCC 722

3. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs Abdul Samad &
anr., (2018) 3 SCC 622

4. Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Air Visual Ltd.,
(2020) 5 SCC 399

5. Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Airvisual Ltd.,
(2020) 5 SCC 399

6. Shashoua (2009) EWHC 957

7. Bharat Aluminium Co Vs Kaiser Aluminium
Technical 14 Services Inc, (2012) 9 SCC 552

8. Enercon (India) Ltd. & ors. Vs Enercon Gmbh
& anr., (2014) 5 SCC 1.