Case Note & Summary
The revision application was filed by the petitioner (Ajitpalsingh Khalsa) against the order dated 21/11/2015 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Amravati in Spl. C.S. No.337/2010, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the suit was barred by res judicata and other provisions. The facts reveal that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale with respondent No.1 on 16/11/2004 for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000 and paid earnest money. Subsequently, supplementary agreements were executed and the entire consideration was paid, but the respondent failed to execute the sale deed. The petitioner filed Spl. C.S. No.206/2005 for specific performance. During that suit, the parties filed a joint pursis and the matter was referred to Lok Adalat on 16/10/2005, where a compromise was reached: the respondent would pay Rs.6,50,000 to the petitioner via two cheques. However, the cheques were dishonored, and the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Later, the petitioner filed another suit (Spl. C.S. No.337/2010) for specific performance of the original agreement. The trial court rejected the petitioner's objection regarding maintainability. The High Court examined the issues of res judicata, Section 47 CPC, and Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act. The court held that the earlier compromise decree passed by Lok Adalat was not a decision on merits and thus did not operate as res judicata. The court also held that Section 47 CPC does not bar a separate suit for specific performance when the earlier decree was a compromise. The court further clarified that the award of Lok Adalat under Section 21 is final and binding but does not preclude a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action if the award was a compromise. The revision was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Applicability to Lok Adalat Award - Section 11 CPC, Section 21 Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - The principle of res judicata does not apply to a compromise decree passed by Lok Adalat as it is not a decision on merits but a settlement between parties. The court held that the earlier compromise decree does not bar a subsequent suit for specific performance of the same agreement. (Paras 1-16) B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Section 47 CPC - Bar of Suit - Section 47 CPC does not bar a suit for specific performance when the earlier decree was a compromise decree passed by Lok Adalat, as the dispute regarding the execution of the compromise decree itself can be agitated in a separate suit. (Paras 17-20) C) Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - Lok Adalat Award - Finality - Section 21 - The award of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of civil court and is final and binding, but it does not operate as res judicata for a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action if the award was a compromise and not a decision on merits. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by res judicata and provisions of Section 47 CPC and Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, in view of the earlier compromise decree passed by Lok Adalat.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The order dated 21/11/2015 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Amravati in Spl. C.S. No.337/2010 is upheld.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- Section 47 CPC
- Section 21 Legal Services Authority Act
- 1987
- Lok Adalat award
- compromise decree
- maintainability of suit
