Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dhanraj Dnyaneshwar Koche, along with respondent No.2, owned an agricultural field and entered into an agreement to sell it to respondent No.1 for Rs.40,00,000, receiving Rs.24,15,000 as advance. When the sale deed was not executed, respondent No.1 approached the District Legal Services Authority under Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. On 9-4-2016, before the Lok Adalat, the parties agreed that the petitioner and respondent No.2 would refund the advance with 12% interest by 31-3-2017, failing which respondent No.1 could pay the balance and get the sale deed executed. The petitioner failed to refund, and respondent No.1 paid the balance and obtained the sale deed through execution. The petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the award as not being on merits, and sought permission to lead evidence. The executing court rejected both applications. The High Court held that the Lok Adalat award is deemed a decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and is final and binding. It cannot be challenged under Section 47 CPC as the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The application for leading evidence was also rightly rejected as the award was based on consent. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Section 47 CPC - Maintainability - Lok Adalat award under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is deemed decree of civil court and is final and binding - Objections under Section 47 CPC are not maintainable as the award cannot be challenged on merits after consent - Held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree (Paras 5-7).
B) Evidence - Permission to Lead Evidence - Execution Proceedings - Judgment debtor sought to lead evidence to show that award was not passed on merits - Since the award is based on consent and is final, no evidence is permissible to challenge its validity - Held that the application for leading evidence was rightly rejected (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Lok Adalat award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can be challenged under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the judgment debtor is entitled to lead evidence to dispute the award.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Orders dated 4-12-2018 and 11-12-2018 passed by the executing court are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Lok Adalat award is deemed decree of civil court under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- final and binding
- not appealable
- objections under Section 47 CPC not maintainable against such award
- no right to lead evidence to challenge award after consent.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 284
WRIT PETITION NO.02 OF 2019
Shri R. D. Dhande for petitioner, Shri Tejas Deshpande for respondent no.1, Shri V. B. Bhise for respondent no.2
Dhanraj Dnyaneshwar Koche
Rajiv Ramdattaji Batra, Pratibha Shankarrao Masurkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging orders rejecting application under Section 47 CPC and application for permission to lead evidence in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the orders dated 4-12-2018 and 11-12-2018 rejecting his Section 47 application and evidence application respectively.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the Lok Adalat award was not passed on merits and sought to challenge it under Section 47 CPC.
Previous Decisions
Executing court rejected the Section 47 application on 4-12-2018 and the evidence application on 11-12-2018.
Issues
Whether a Lok Adalat award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can be challenged under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Whether the judgment debtor is entitled to lead evidence to dispute the Lok Adalat award in execution proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Lok Adalat award was not passed on merits and therefore could be challenged under Section 47 CPC.
Respondent No.1 contended that the award is final and binding under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and cannot be challenged under Section 47 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
A Lok Adalat award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties. Such an award cannot be challenged under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The judgment debtor is not entitled to lead evidence to dispute the award after having consented to it.
Judgment Excerpts
The award passed by the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of the civil court and is final and binding between the parties.
The executing court cannot go behind the decree and the objections under Section 47 of the Code are not maintainable.
The application for leading evidence was rightly rejected as the award was based on consent.
Procedural History
The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement to sell land to respondent No.1. Dispute arose, and respondent No.1 approached the District Legal Services Authority under Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. On 9-4-2016, the Lok Adalat passed an award based on consent. The petitioner failed to comply, and respondent No.1 obtained execution. The petitioner filed an application under Section 47 CPC and an application for permission to lead evidence, both rejected on 4-12-2018 and 11-12-2018 respectively. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 47
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Section 19(5), Section 21
- Constitution of India: Article 227
