India through General Manager NWR, Jaipur Vs A Cube vs Shri Jogendrasinhji

Judgment

5. Nirmal Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Nemichand Ji Khinvsara, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Opposite Geeta Bhawan, Outside Nehru Gate, Beawar, District Ajmer. Sanjay Kumar Singhal @ Lala Son Of Shri Harishchandra Ji Singhal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 2/3 Gauri Sadan, Pratap Nagar, Beawar, District Ajmer. Smt. Pushpa Bhandawat Wife Of Shri Prakashmal Ji, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Champa Nagar, Beawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan). State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub Registrar Beawar, District Ajmer. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder, Tehsildar Beawar, District Ajmer.

6. The State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg with Mr. A.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, senior advocate Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Mr. Mukesh Shukla, Mr. Anuj Rohilla, Mr. Umang Jain and Ms. Muskan Verma Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 07/04/2025 Order

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner objector aggrieved from dismissal of application for objection on

27.09.2022 against judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018 passed in civil suit No.19/2018 and subsequent Execution [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (2 of 13) [CR-233/2022] Application No.06/2019 (CIS No. 38/2018) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Beawar, Ajmer.

Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as decree-holder) have obtained a decree against respondent No.3 defendant (hereinafter referred as judgment debtor) on the basis of compromise and failing to observe conditions in compromise decree, an execution application is filed by decree-holder. He further submitted that after knowledge of decree obtained by playing fraud and mis- representation, the petitioner herein has filed an objection petition before the executing court to stay execution proceedings. He further submitted that the facts narrated in civil suit clearly indicated that plaintiffs have filed a civil suit and obtained decree by concealing facts about previous litigations and also agreement to sale executed with Surjeet Singh on 22.12.2006. He also submitted that the trial court instead of adopting a process of full fledged inquiry has dismissed the application of petitioner objector. He further referred the provision of Section 47 of CPC and submitted that all questions arising out of a decree are required to be addressed and adjudicated by the executing court. He further placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal and Anr. Versus Sudheer Mohan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7266/2022) and submitted that after dismissal of application under Section 47 of CPC, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable and not a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (3 of 13) [CR-233/2022]

3. He further referred the order dated 11.11.2020 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.28/2020 order dated 01.12.2018 in civil writ petition No.840/2012 and submitted that only a revision petition is maintainable against the dismissal of application under Section 47 of CPC.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has further placed reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Union of India through General Manager NWR, Jaipur Vs A Cube Associates, Jodhpur through its partner Ajay Yadav (2016) 0 Supreme (Raj) 883 and submitted that after placing reliance upon judgment in case of Shri Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 1 it was held that no writ can be issued under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India when an order is passed by a Civil Court. Learned counsel for petitioner has further referred judgment in case of Shri Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) to support his contention. He further placed reliance upon judgment of larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radhey Shyam And Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. 2015 SC 3269=(2015) 5 SCC 423 and submitted that against an order of civil court, revision petition or appeal or a writ under Article 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable but no other remedy exist for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. He further referred judgment of full Bench of this Court in case of Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (2021) 0 Supreme (Raj) 607 and submitted that a revision petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court and petitioner has a right to pursue the remedy by way of instant petition. [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (4 of 13) [CR-233/2022]

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent decree-holder and submitted that during pendency of civil suit, the parties have compromised the matter before the Lok Adalat and when compromise is attested and verified by Lok Adalat then no proceeding can lie before any court by way of appeal or revision. He further referred the judgment in case of Bharvagi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Muthyam Reddy & Ors. 2017 SCC Online-SC 1053 and submitted the compromise decree passed by Lok Adalat has to be considered as an award and no application under Section 47 of CPC is maintainable before the executing Court. He further submitted that when an application under Section 47 of CPC is not maintainable then revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is also not maintainable. He further submitted that Legal Services Authority Act is special statute which provides for finality of proceedings, when taken up the Lok Adalat. He further referred Section 21 and submitted that an award made by Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award and it includes revision petition. He also referred the facts of the case and submitted that respondents decree-holder has filed a Civil suit based on a cause of action and during pendency of this civil suit the parties have settled their dispute and compromised which ultimately resulted in a compromise decree. He also submitted that a compromise decree can be challenged by way of filing a writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned senior advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the material placed on record along with judgments as cited by both the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (5 of 13) [CR-233/2022]

7. The Plaintiffs Nirmal Kumar and Sanjay Kumar have filed a civil suit No.19/2018 before learned Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, Ajmer for specific performance of agreement to sale dated

28.08.2017 with respect to land Khasra No.1365 raqba 1 Bhiga 5 Biswa, Kisambarani Village Nayanagar, Beawar. After receipt of notice, defencen No.1 Pushpa appeared in person with her counsel and filed a compromise. Learned trial court on basis of settlement between the parties, has attested the compromise and passed a decree and also directed refund of court fee to the plaintiffs.

8. Afterwards an execution application No.38/2018 was filed by decree-holders and during pendency of this execution petition an objection application is filed by petitioner before executing court. The executing court after considering same has dismissed the objection on 27.09.2022.

9. Learned senior advocate for respondent has raised an objection about maintainability of civil revision petition, thus before deciding the issue on merits we are considering the maintainability of instant revision petition.

10. Aggrieved from dismissal of an objection application in an execution proceeding filed by present petitioner/objector, instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC is filed by petitioner. For ready reference, Section 115 CPC is reproduced as under: (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (6 of 13) [CR-233/2022] (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.

11. The court has dismissed the objection application though same is not filed under Section 47 of CPC. Section 47 of CPC is reproduced as under: (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. [Explanation 1.-- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (7 of 13) [CR-233/2022] defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II.-- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.

12. Aforesaid provision makes it clear that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. The provision is applicable when there is dispute arising between the parties to the suit and not otherwise.

13. A perusal of application dated 24.09.2018 filed by present petitioner before the trial court clearly reflect that this application is filed only to stay the execution proceedings and not for any other relief. The relief claimed by petitioner is reproduced as under: " अतः नि(cid:5)वेद(cid:5) है नि(cid:11) ्ቚाቕኍ(cid:15) ्ቛारा ्ቚ्ቜुत एतराज (cid:11)ो ्ቭी(cid:11)ार (cid:11)रते हुये अ्቗ ्቗ायालयों में निवचाराधी(cid:5) ्ቚ(cid:11)रणों (cid:11)े ्቗ानिय(cid:11) नि(cid:5)्ቜारण त(cid:11) ्ቚ्ቜुत ्ቚ(cid:11)रण (cid:11)ी (cid:11)ाय#वाही (cid:11)ो ्ቝनि%त रखा जावें ।"

14. Now comes the question whether this revision petition is maintainable or not. The Legal Services Authority Act 1987 was [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (8 of 13) [CR-233/2022] enacted by the Parliament to provide free and competent legal service to weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalat to secure that operation of legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunities.

15. “Lok Adalat” is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act of 1987 which means Lok Adalat is organized under Chapter VI. Section 19 of the Act of 1987 provides for organization of Lok Adalat whereas Section 20 empowers the Lok Adalar to take cognizance of cases and Section 21 is about award of Lok Adalat. For ready reference we are reporducing Section 19 and 21 of the Act of 1987 as under:

19. Organisation 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 organize 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 Adalat. (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 [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (9 of 13) [CR-233/2022] Services Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central 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 sub-section (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— (i) 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.

21. Award of Lok Adalat.—1[(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section(1) of section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).] (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.

16. Section 19(2) of the Act of 1987 provides that every Lok Adalat organized for an area shall consist of such members of serving or retired judicial officer(s) and other person(s) which means there must be a Bench of at least 2 persons which includes [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (10 of 13) [CR-233/2022] one serving or retired judicial officer but there must be another member to constitute a Bench of Lok Adalat. If an award is passed by a Lok Adalat then same is final and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

17. Herein this case, the petitioner has filed a copy of compromise executed between plaintiffs and defendant on

03.05.2018 and also order dated 03.05.2018. It indicated that parties with intent of Lok Adalat have compromised the matter and same was attested by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, Dist. Ajmer. The compromise was infact attested by a Court and not by a Bench of Lok Adalat. It is also evident that the order passed by a Judge, is in capcity of a Presiding Officer of a Court. The attestation of compromise does not mean that it is an award by a Lok Adalat. Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1987 is applicable only when an award is passed by duly constituted Lok Adalat under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 but herein the compromise decree is not passed by a Bench of Lok Adalat.

18. In case of Bharvagi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the judgment in case of State of Punjav Vs. Jalore Singh and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 660 has held that in view of provision under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1987 an award passed by a Bench of Lok Adalat is not amenable to jurisdiction of civil court but same can be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or of Constitution of India in the High Court in accordance with law.

19. In the instant case, it is apparent on the face of record that the compromise decree was not passed by a Bench of Lok Adalat [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (11 of 13) [CR-233/2022] rather it is passed by a civil court, therefore the judgment in case of Bharvagi Constructions & Anr. Vs. Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (supra) is not applicable in the instant matter.

20. In case of Radhey Shyam And Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. (supra) a Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering remedies against an order of civil court has answered a reference in following manner: (i) Judicial Orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. (ii) Jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

21. Further in case of Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (supra) a full Bench of this Court while answering reference has placed reliance upon judgment in case of LIC of India Vs. Nandini Jay Sharma (2018) 15 SC 356 and Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chabbinath (supra) has held that judicial order passed by rent tribunal and appellate rent tribunal are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and legality of such orders can only be questioned by invoking powers of superintendence of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

22. In case of Shri Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order of civil court can be challenged by exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In case of Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal and Anr. Versus Sudheer Mohan and [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (12 of 13) [CR-233/2022] Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an option of revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is available to challenge an order of civil court.

23. Having considered aforesaid, instant revision petition is preferred after dismissal of objection application dated 24.09.2018 filed by the petitioner objector and in view of law as discussed hereinabove the revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable.

24. A perusal of impugned order dated 27.09.2022 clearly indicated that trial court has considered provision of Order XXIII Rule 3 and 3A of CPC while dismissing the application of present petitioner. We have considered the grounds as raised by learned counsel for petitioner but before considerig this application on merits it is apparent on record that this petitioner has not sought any relief to challenge decree dated 03.05.2018 passed in suit No.19/2018. If said decree has been obtained by playing fraud and mis-representation then it is nullity in eye of law. This principle was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1. The objector has filed objection mentioning several facts but he has not challenged the decree dated 03.05.2018 by filing appropriate proceeding before the executing court.

25. In view of limited relief claimed by petitioner, I am of considered view that an application cannot be allowed to stay the execution proceedings rather the application should be filed to challenge judgment and decree by which rights of petitioner were effected therefore the application which was filed before the trial [2025:RJ-JP:22903] (13 of 13) [CR-233/2022] court itself is vague and ambiguous and on the basis of same, no relief can be granted to stay execution proceeding.

26. The petitioner is free to take appropriate steps to challenge judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018 in civil suit No.19/2018, if any cause of action or ground is available to him but he cannot seek merely a stay of proceeding till other cases are disposed of. If other cases are pending and subject matter is same then stay has to be procured from said pending case or proceeding and not from the executing court therefore this revision petition sans merits and liable to be dismissed.

27. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petition filed aggrieved from dismissal of application for objection against judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Beawar, Ajmer is hereby dismissed.

28. No order as to cost. PREETI VALECHA /262 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J