Rutu Bariha vs Raghunath Mishra and Others

B.K. Nayak, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the opp. parties on call.

The order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), S. Rampur in CM.A. No.1 of 2009 rejecting the petitioner''s application under Order 23, Rule-3 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside compromise decree passed in the Lok Adalat dated 17.8.2003 in Original Civil Suit No.10 of 2003 has been challenged in this writ petition, The Court below has rejected the petition on the ground that Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 bars the jurisdiction of the Court to set aside the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat.

The reason assigned by the Court below is not borne out from the text of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Orissa Legal Services Authority Act which reads as under :

21(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award.

The aforesaid provision only bars an appeal against the award made by the Lok Adalat. But, it does not prevent the original Court to consider whether a compromise decree or an award can be set aside under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C, which is specific provision for setting aside a compromise decree.

In the circumstance, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial Court to consider the applicability of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. for setting aside a compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat.

The writ petition and M.C. No. 12788 of 2011 are accordingly disposed of.

Issue UCC as per rules.