Award Passed by Lok Adalat Cannot Be Challenged Before Civil Court Even on Grounds of Fraud: Bombay High Court Quashes Application Seeking Annulment of Settlement

“Remedy Against Lok Adalat Award Lies Only Under Article 226/227, Not Civil Suit or Miscellaneous Application” –  In a decisive reaffirmation of the finality attached to Lok Adalat awards, the Bombay High Court held that a consent decree recorded by a Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 cannot be challenged before the Civil Court—even on allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. Justice N.J. Jamadar quashed a Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA No. 87 of 2021), ruling that the only remedy available against such an award lies under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

The Court stressed, “The very act of entertaining a challenge to a Lok Adalat award by a civil court is legally impermissible. Whether labelled as a suit or miscellaneous application is immaterial—the nature of the relief sought renders the proceeding non-maintainable.”

The case stemmed from a marital dispute where the applicant, Surekha Tanaji Naik, had earlier settled her domestic violence complaint before a National Lok Adalat on July 13, 2019. As part of the compromise, the respondents—her husband and in-laws—had agreed to permanently hand over a residential house to her.

Subsequently, the respondents filed MCA No. 87 of 2021 seeking to set aside that compromise, alleging that the award was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, and that the property in question was undivided joint family land not capable of being assigned.

The Civil Judge, Jaysingpur, entertained the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), refusing to reject the proceeding under Order VII Rule 11(d). Aggrieved, the applicant approached the High Court in revision.

High Court’s Findings on Jurisdictional Bar
The High Court categorically held that the Civil Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction. Relying on binding precedent, the Court ruled: “The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 660] and Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy [(2018) 13 SCC 480] has laid down that a Lok Adalat award, even if alleged to be obtained by fraud, can only be challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.”
 

Rejecting the respondents’ contention that since they had filed a “Miscellaneous Civil Application” and not a regular suit, the proceeding was maintainable, the Court clarified: “The nomenclature of the proceeding is irrelevant. The remedy against an award passed by a Lok Adalat is not available before any Civil Court, regardless of the form in which the challenge is framed.”

No Scope to Circumvent Constitutional Remedy
Justice Jamadar observed that the Civil Judge’s reliance on Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was misplaced. While that provision allows compromise decrees to be challenged for being void or voidable, it does not apply to Lok Adalat awards under the Legal Services Authorities Act.
“The law laid down in Jalour Singh cannot be indirectly circumvented by invoking Order XXIII Rule 3. Once the award is passed by a duly constituted Lok Adalat, the only recourse is through a writ petition before the High Court.”
 

The Court noted that the Compromise Pursis had been duly signed by both parties and their advocates, and the Lok Adalat had followed all procedures to confirm voluntariness before disposing of the domestic violence complaint. Allegations raised later could not override the statutory finality of such a settlement.

Setting aside the impugned order dated March 15, 2022, the High Court concluded: “The main application (MCA No. 87 of 2021) was not legally sustainable. The Civil Judge erred in entertaining and proceeding with a matter barred by law.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision application, rejected the challenge to the Lok Adalat award, and upheld the compromise granted to the applicant wife.

This judgment fortifies the sanctity and enforceability of awards passed by Lok Adalats and provides much-needed clarity on the exclusive jurisdiction of constitutional courts in entertaining challenges to such settlements. The Court made it clear that “civil courts cannot reopen what has been conclusively resolved through a mechanism statutorily designed for finality and speed.”
“Judicial discipline demands that lower courts must not bypass clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court in pursuit of equitable reconsideration.”

Date of Decision: April 22, 2025