Case Cannot Be Referred To Lok Adalat Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing To All Parties To Dispute: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court at Aizawl on Thursday (November 14) set aside an Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act on the ground that the petitioner was not a party in the original civil suit and hence, she was not given an opportunity of being heard in the matter before referring the case to Lok Adalat.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Marli Vankung observed:

“On a reading of the above provisions of law, it is clear that, no case is to be referred to Lok Adalat by any Court, except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties in a dispute. In the instant case, the present petitioner was not a party in the pending Civil Suit No.6/2009, therefore she was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter.”

The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and quashing the Award dated October 26, 2019 passed by the Lok Adalat, Aizawl District Legal Services Authority under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (the Act, 1987) vide which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs to respondent no. 4 which was borrowed by the deceased husband of the petitioner.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Lok Adalat had acted beyond its powers conferred under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, 1987, in making the award against the petitioner, whereas she was not a party to the dispute in original Civil Suit.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was compelled to appear before the Lok Adalat under threat and coercion by the police as the summons were to her through the OC Police Station Bawngkawn, It was argued that the petitioner was also made to sign on the impugned Award under threat, whereby, she did not fully understand the terms of the impugned Lok Adalat Award nor did she understand its full implication when she was made to put her signature on the award.

On the Other hand, the Senior Counsel appearing for certain respondents contended that the impugned award is dated October 26, 2019, however, the petitioner has approached the High Court only on April 05, 2022, thus there was a delay of almost 3 years in approaching the Court. It was further submitted that the limited grounds for setting aside an award passed by the Lok Adalat is that there is manifest miscarriage of justice, which is not an issue in the present case.

It was also submitted that under Section 22 of the Act, 1987, Lok Adalat has the power to summon and enforce attendance of witness and examine, and also have the power to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. Therefore, it was argued that in terms of the said powers, the petitioner was also made a party and accordingly summoned since her presence was found necessary for arriving at a settlement.

The Court considered two main points for adjudication which are as follows:

1. Whether the instant revision petition against the Award dated October 26, 2019 can be considered after a lapse of almost 3 years, wherein the present petitioner had preferred to file the Civil Revision Petition only on April 05, 2022.
2. Whether the Lok Adalat had acted beyond its jurisdiction in making the petitioner a party in the Lok Adalat while she was not a party in the connected Civil Suit and in issuing summons to the petitioner to appear before the Lok Adalat by issuing notice to her through the OC, Bawngkawn Police Station and thereafter making the impugned award, wherein the present petitioner was held liable to pay the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to respondent no. 4.

The Court noted that the explanation given by the petitioner was that a copy of the award was received by her only on March 08, 2022 and that she did not understand the full implication of the award when she was threatened and forced to put her signature on the impugned Award on October 26, 2019.

“This Court considering that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein there is no limitation period prescribed, finds it fit to consider the revision petition on merits, on finding that there is a fair possibility that she did not understand the full implication of her putting her signature on the impugned award on 26.10.2019,” the Court said.

It was highlighted by the Court that it is seen that the present petitioner is not a witness but was made a party in the Lok Adalat proceedings. Further, though it is held at Sub-section 2 of Section 22 that the Lok Adalat has the power to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. However, the Court observed that the same cannot include a procedure which is contradictory to with what is laid out under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, 1987.

The Court further remarked that the summons were issued to the petitioner through the OC Police Station Bawngkawn and therefore, it appeared that the present petitioner was under some decree of compulsion to appear before the Lok Adalat.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat and referred back the matter to the Senior Civil Judge, wherein the case is at the stage of hearing of arguments.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 84

Case Title: Smt. Sangluri v. Sh. H. Lalhmingmawia & 3 Ors.

Case No.: CRP/1/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order