Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Avinash Estate Owners Association, filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court challenging a judgment and order dated 08.07.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat, Ahmedabad, in Commercial Civil Suit No.225 of 2016 (old Summary Suit No.1426 of 2007). The suit was decreed based on consent terms dated 07.07.2017, which bore the signatures of the partner of the respondent firm and the President/Secretary of the petitioner Association. The advocates for both parties had identified the signatories. The petitioner contended that the Association was formed by Upendrabhai Chinubhai Shah, real brother of Hasmukhbhai Chinubhai Shah (partner of respondent), and that there were disputes between the partnership firm and the Association. The petitioner sought quashing of the Lok Adalat decree. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and perusing the record, dismissed the petition. The court observed that the suit was decreed based on consent terms signed by the parties and identified by their advocates. The court held that a consent decree is akin to a contract and cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition, as the petitioner had voluntarily agreed to the terms. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise any objection before the Lok Adalat regarding lack of authority or fraud. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Consent Decree - Lok Adalat - Finality - A consent decree passed by a Lok Adalat based on consent terms signed by the parties is final and binding, and cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as it amounts to a contract between the parties. The court held that the petitioner, having signed the consent terms and having been represented by counsel, cannot later challenge the decree on the ground of lack of authority or fraud, especially when no such plea was raised before the Lok Adalat. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge a consent decree passed by a Lok Adalat based on consent terms signed by the parties.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the consent decree based on signed consent terms is final and cannot be challenged under Article 226/227.
Law Points
- Consent decree
- Lok Adalat
- finality of consent terms
- challenge to consent decree
- maintainability of writ petition against consent decree
