Bombay High Court Quashes Civil Court Order Allowing Challenge to Lok Adalat Award in Domestic Violence Settlement. Lok Adalat Award Under Sections 20 and 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Is Final and Not Subject to Civil Court Challenge Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

Civil revision against an order rejecting an application for rejection of a miscellaneous civil application that sought to set aside a Lok Adalat award.

The applicant sought rejection of the main application (Misc. Civil Application No.87 of 2021) under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the Lok Adalat award could not be challenged before the Civil Court.

The respondents had filed the main application before the Civil Court alleging that the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat was obtained by fraud, they were not present, and the property was joint family property; the applicant sought to have that application rejected as barred by law.

The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaysingpur, by order dated 15 March 2022, rejected the applicant's application (Exh.10), holding that a miscellaneous civil application was not a suit and that the Civil Court was competent to examine the legality and validity of the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

Whether an award passed by a Lok Adalat can be challenged before the same Civil Court or an appellate court. Whether the application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was maintainable in respect of a miscellaneous civil application arising from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC despite the finality of a Lok Adalat award. Whether allegations of fraud and absence before the Lok Adalat warranted a full-fledged inquiry in the Civil Court.

The applicant argued that the learned Civil Judge transgressed jurisdiction in entertaining the application to set aside the award despite the Supreme Court decision in Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy; the view that a suit would be barred but a miscellaneous civil application could be entertained is untenable. The applicant further argued that Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC does not override the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, which is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that it was the bounden duty of the Lok Adalat to examine the legality and validity of the compromise; the Explanation to Rule 3 Order XXIII provides that an agreement or compromise void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed lawful. The respondents contended that the property exclusively allotted to the applicant did not belong to respondent no.1; it was joint family property, and all co-sharers had an undivided interest, which the National Lok Adalat did not examine. The respondents submitted that specific allegations of fraud and absence before the Lok Adalat warranted investigation into facts and a decision on merits; therefore, the learned Civil Judge committed no error in rejecting the application for rejection.

A Lok Adalat award is final and binding under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and cannot be challenged before a Civil Court; the Civil Court's reliance on Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is legally unsustainable because it does not override binding Supreme Court decisions; Section 141 CPC applies to miscellaneous proceedings when CPC is invoked; allegations of fraud are prima facie contradicted by the Lok Adalat order recording presence and acknowledgment of signatures.

Under sub-Section (1) of Section 21, 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 21, in terms, declares that every award made by the 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. Once the Respondents resorted to the provisions contained in Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code, it was not open for the Respondents to urge that the provisions contained in the Code were not attracted to the main application. The primary question that wrenches to the fore is, is it permissible to attack the award passed by the Lok Adalat either before the same Court or before the Appellate Court ? Prima facie, I am afraid to accede to the aforesaid submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

The applicant approached the Protection Officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; the complaint was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaysingpur, and Criminal Misc. Application No.15 of 2019 was registered. On 29 June 2019, the applicant and respondent nos.1 and 3 filed a joint pursis to place the DV proceedings before the Lok Adalat; on 13 July 2019, before the National Lok Adalat, the parties filed a Compromise Pursis (Exh. C), and the Lok Adalat disposed of PWDV Application No.15 of 2019 in terms of the compromise. Later, respondent nos.1 to 3 filed the main application purportedly under Order XXIII Rule 3 and Section 151 CPC before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, contending fraud and illegality. On 22 October 2021, the Civil Judge directed registration of the main application as Misc. Civil Application No.87 of 2021, keeping maintainability open. The applicant filed Exh.10 for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. By order dated 15 March 2022, the Civil Judge rejected Exh.10. The applicant then filed Civil Revision Application No.311 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, which was reserved on 29 January 2025 and pronounced on 22 April 2025.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(d), Order XXIII Rule 3 with Explanation, Section 141, Section 151
• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Section 2(d), Section 19(5), Section 20, Section 21(1), Section 21(2)
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
• Indian Contract Act, 1872:
• Constitution of India: Article 141