Bharat Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

of notice on the applicant on 11.12.2022, he put his first appearance on 19.04.2023 and didn’t appear before the Executing Court on several other subsequent dates, which again displays reluctance of the applicant to pay the due amount.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further contends that an execution order was issued on

08.12.2023 in the Execution Case No.13 of 2022 against the applicant, but, an interim order dated 22.12.2023 in the instant C482, but was also passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. Two Lakhs (Rs.2,00,000/-) within 10 days from the passing of that order i.e. 22.12.2023, which again has not been paid by the applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also contends that the applicant owes money to three persons and has settled the dispute with only one person named Ramesh Tomar and this fact alone does not depict the bonafide conduct of the applicant. He also submits that respondent No.2 entered into the compromise for settling the dispute for a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand (Rs.5,50,000/-) instead Rupees Ten Lakhs (Rs.10,00,000/-), only after the assurance of receiving the 4 amount immediately. It is further contended by him that after giving sufficient time and opportunities to the applicant to pay the due amount, it is evident that he never had a bonafide intention of making the payment. Hence, the respondent No.2 is now pursuing the cause for getting entire amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs. He also raised objection to the maintainability of this application stating therein that as the award passed by the National Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree passed by a Civil Court, therefore, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will not lie.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant filed his rejoinder affidavit, in which, it is stated that the cheque dated 04.08.2021 was given to respondent No.2 only for security purpose and he had paid the entire amount to respondent No.2, which is evident the bank transaction. He also submits that the applicant had deposited a sum of Rupees Two Lakhs (Rs.2,00,000/-) by way of demand draft before the learned Civil Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri. He further submitted that the applicant had cleared the amount of all three persons i.e. Ramesh Tomar, Manoj Panwar and Rahul Panwar (respondent No.2), which clearly shows the bonafide conduct of the applicant.

10. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, at the very outset, this Court takes note of the fact that by virtue of Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, every award of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and the same is final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The said provision reads as under: “21. Award of Lok Adalat:- (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 5 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...”

11. In this regard, the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P.T.Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005) 6 SCC 344 are also relevant, whereby it has been held as under: “...Award of Lok Adalat

20. The Lok Adalat shall proceed and dispose the cases and arrive at a compromise or settlement by following the legal principles, equity and natural justice. Ultimately the Lok Adalat passes an award, and every such award shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court or as the case may be which is final. Award of Lok Adalat shall be final

21. The Lok Adalat will passes the award with the consent of the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final. Even as under Section 96(3) of C.P.C. that "no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties". The award of the Lok Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the parties, and it shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3) C.P.C. *** 23. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Vishakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok Adalat-cum-Secy, District Legal Services Authority, the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final. In all fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a Court on a regular suit by a Court on a regular trial, however, it is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and conclusive just as the decree passed on the compromises cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat being akin to the same, cannot be challenged by any regular remedies available under law including invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the award on any ground. Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially on the grounds as raised in this writ petition. 24. The award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending to the litigation among parties...” 6

12. As far as the applicability of Section 21 of Legal Services Authority Act to an award passed in respect of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji (2012) 2 SCC 51 has categorically held that an award of Lok Adalat in respect of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is to be treated as a decree under Section 21 of Legal Services Authority Act. The relevant observations of the Court are as under: “26. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: 1. In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court. 2. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. 3. There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. 4. Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.”

13. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this Court lacks jurisdiction for challenging the impugned proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed.

15. Interim order dated 22.12.2023 stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.08.2025