Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhukar Baburao Shete, a senior citizen with 95% physical disability, challenged an award passed by the Lok Adalat in Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 filed by the respondent, Yogesh Trimbak Shete, in the Civil Court at Barshi. The suit was filed on 1 September 2017 and registered on 4 September 2017. On the same day, summons were issued returnable on 9 September 2017, which was the scheduled date of the Lok Adalat. The petitioner claimed he never received the suit summons and was unaware that his signature was obtained on a compromise pursis before the Lok Adalat. He alleged that the respondent brought him before the Lok Adalat panel and under undue influence, he signed the compromise, leading to the disposal of the suit. The petitioner argued that no valid reference was made under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and thus the Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the summons being made returnable on the Lok Adalat date implied a reference, and the petitioner voluntarily appeared and signed the compromise. The Court analyzed the mandatory nature of Section 20, relying on Namdeo Hambira Babar v. Gajanan Bhauso Babar, and held that without a valid reference, the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction. The Court found that the procedure was not followed, and the award was void. Consequently, the Court quashed the Lok Adalat award and restored the suit to the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi, for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 20 - Mandatory Reference - Lok Adalat Jurisdiction - The procedure for making a reference to the Lok Adalat under Section 20(1) is mandatory; without a valid reference, the Lok Adalat lacks jurisdiction to pass an award. In the present case, the suit summons was made returnable on the Lok Adalat date without an explicit order of reference, and the petitioner was not served with summons. The Court held that the award passed without following the mandatory procedure is void and liable to be set aside (Paras 7-9, 13-30). B) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 19(5)(ii) - Powers of Lok Adalat - While Section 19(5)(ii) allows the Lok Adalat to take up any matter within the jurisdiction of a court, this power is subject to a valid reference under Section 20. The Court held that the Lok Adalat cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the matter is listed on its date; a proper reference order is essential (Paras 11, 13-30). C) Principles of Natural Justice - Consent and Undue Influence - The petitioner, a senior citizen with 95% disability, alleged that his signature was obtained under undue influence. The Court noted that the petitioner's appearance and signing of the compromise pursis did not cure the lack of jurisdiction, and the award was set aside as it violated natural justice (Paras 5-6, 12, 13-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lok Adalat award passed without a valid reference under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is sustainable, and whether the petitioner's consent was vitiated by undue influence.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Lok Adalat award dated 9 September 2017, and restored Regular Civil Suit No. 781 of 2017 to the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi, for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mandatory reference under Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- Lok Adalat jurisdiction
- principles of natural justice
- validity of compromise award
- fraud and coercion allegations
