Aijaz Ahmad Dar vs Mukhtar Ahmad Shah

Impugned in this Revision petition is Order dated 10.10.2019 passed by Munsiff, Ganderbal (for short executing court) on the following grounds: -

a) That the executing court misunderstood the mandate of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and instead of returning the finding on the issue

“whether the decree/award is vague in nature and incapable of execution thereof†the court overlooked the said legal mandate and returned the

finding which apparently seems beyond the purview of Section 47 of CPC. While doing so, the court has committed a brazen error by which the

executing court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested.

b) That the law is otherwise very clear as to award of Lok Adalat, as it is competent to pass an award, based on compromise / settlement; however,

the Lok Adalat is not competent to pass conditional award. The award passed is based on condition, hence void. In the Lok Adalat, the matters are

purely consolatory in nature and must be passed on the basis of compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties. If the award is not in the

nature of settlement or compromise, the same is void ab initio. A Lok Adalat determines reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement arrived

at between the parties and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise / settlement. When the

c) parties are not able to arrive at a settlement/compromise, no award is made by Lok Adalat and the case is returned to the court, from which the

reference was received for disposal in accordance with law. Lok Adalat has no power to hear the parties to adjudicate cases as a Regular court does;

d) That the executing court completely misunderstood the whole controversy and returned a final order impugned which goes against the spirit of

mandate of Section 47 CPC;

A Bench of this Court on 05.11.2019, while issuing notice to the respondents, stayed operation of the impugned order subject to depositing of an

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court. However, said amount was not deposited and resultantly, aforesaid interim order was

vacated vide Order dated 07.12.2019. Thereafter, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. N. A. Beigh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for respondents, states that on previous date of hearing, this Court observed that since nobody

appeared for petitioner and interim order had already been vacated, petitioner appeared to have lost interest to prosecute Revision petition. However,

in the interest of justice, Revision Petition was adjourned with a hope that petitioner would cause appearance on the next date of hearing. It was

specifically provided in terms of order dated 25th of November, 2020 that in case the petitioner would not turn up on the next date, appropriate orders

shall follow. Nobody is present on behalf of petitioner today.

I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and considered the matter. I have gone through the impugned order.

The order, under challenge, has been passed in an application, filed by the petitioner, under Section 47 CPC before the Executing Court, stating

therein that award was not passed in accordance with the mandate of Legal Services Authority Act and Rules, and therefore, was not executable.

Perusal of file reveals that there is no infirmity or vagueness in the award, passed by the Lok Adalat. It is made clear here that judgement Debtor is

liable to pay the amount in terms of Award passed in Lok Adalat as it was passed on the consensus of the parties, inasmuch as, same has not been

challenged till date. Execution of the award was however, objected in the application under section 47 of CPC, which the executing court has rightly

rejected.

Award has not been challenged, which was passed in the Lok Adalat on consensus of the parties. The said award is binding on them and since

there is no illegality found in the order whereby application under Section 47 of CPC has been rejected, award passed by the Lok Adalat is thus

executable. Besides, there is no ground in Revision petition to interfere with the order of executing court, as such, the Revision petition is

misconceived, without any merit and liable to be rejected.

For the reasons detailed above, Revision petition is dismissed along with connected CM(s).

Interim direction, if any, in force as on date shall stand vacated.