Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru in Pre-Litigation Case No.480/2015. The original petitioner, K.G. Subbaiah, since deceased and represented by legal representatives, alleged that the order was obtained by fraud, impersonation, and forgery of his signatures. The background involved a claim by original respondent No.1, Smt D.M. Sharadamma, since deceased and represented by legal representatives, who filed a pre-litigation petition on 18.06.2015 before the Authority alleging that the original petitioner and respondent No.2 had borrowed Rs.4,28,000/- and failed to repay. The Authority issued notices and fixed hearing on 25.06.2015; service was held sufficient and the matter was listed to 06.07.2015 for referring to the Lok Adalat. On 26.06.2015, counsel for respondent No.1 filed an application to prepone the matter; the Authority purportedly referred it to the Lok Adalat the same day. An advocate Smt. Rupa K. allegedly filed vakalath and a joint memo on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2, agreeing to pay Rs.4,28,000/- within one year from 01.08.2015. The Authority allowed the petition based on the joint memo. The original petitioner contended that he was unaware of the proceedings until he received notice in execution case Ex.No.173/2016. He alleged that some person impersonated him, forged his signatures on the vakalath and joint memo, and that he was working as a Headmaster in Chikkamagaluru the whole day. He also approached the local police by filing a complaint. The legal issue before the court was whether the impugned order should be quashed due to fraud, lack of notice, and non-compliance with the procedure under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Regulation 10 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009. The court examined the provisions of law governing reference of matters to Lok Adalat. It noted that under Section 19(5), Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine compromise or settlement in pending cases and pre-litigation matters. Under Section 20(2), a pre-litigation matter may be referred by the Authority or Committee on receipt of an application from any party after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. Regulation 10(1A) similarly requires reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party before referring a pre-litigation matter. The court observed that no mechanical reference of pending cases to Lok Adalat shall be made and the referring court shall prima facie satisfy itself that there are chances of settlement. The final decision on the writ petition is not available in the provided excerpt, as the judgment text ends while discussing the legal provisions. Therefore, the ultimate verdict and operative directions are not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Alternative Dispute Resolution - Lok Adalat Jurisdiction - Pre-litigation matters - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Sections 19 and 20; National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 Regulation 10 - The court examined the scope of Lok Adalat jurisdiction under Section 19(5), distinguishing pending cases and pre-litigation matters, and the procedure under Section 20 for cognizance. For pre-litigation matters, Section 20(2) and Regulation 10(1A) require reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party before reference. The court observed that a mechanical reference of pending cases to Lok Adalat shall be avoided and the referring court shall prima facie satisfy itself about chances of settlement. The petitioner alleged fraud and lack of notice in the pre-litigation proceedings; the court was considering whether the procedure was strictly followed. Held that the provisions of law require strict compliance with notice and opportunity of hearing before referring a pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat (Paras 6-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru in P.L.C.No.480/2015 was liable to be quashed on the grounds of fraud, impersonation, forgery of signatures, and lack of notice to the petitioner; whether the Authority followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Regulation 10 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 while referring the pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available excerpt
Law Points
- Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987 Sections 19 and 20 govern jurisdiction and cognizance of Lok Adalats
- Pre-litigation matters may be referred under Section 20(2) after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party
- National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations
- 2009 Regulation 10(1A) requires reference of pre-litigation matter on request of any party after reasonable opportunity of being heard to other party
- Lok Adalat shall be guided by principles of justice
- equity
- fair play and other legal principles
- No mechanical reference of pending cases to Lok Adalat shall be made
- Court must prima facie satisfy itself chances of settlement
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (08) 23
Writ Petition No.29824 of 2017 (GM-RES)
A. Madhusudhana Rao, Prakash M.H.
Sri K.G. Subbaiah (since deceased, represented by legal representatives)
Smt D.M. Sharadamma (since deceased by legal representatives) and Sri C.R. Sridhar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru in Pre-Litigation Case No.480/2015, which recorded a compromise for repayment of Rs.4,28,000/-.
Remedy Sought
The legal representatives of the original petitioner sought to quash the impugned order/decree dated 26.06.2015 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru in P.L.C.No.480/2015 and allow the writ petition with costs.
Filing Reason
The original petitioner alleged that he was unaware of the pre-litigation proceedings, that a person impersonated him before the Lok Adalat, forged his signatures on vakalath and joint memo, and that no proper notice was served on him; he learned of the order only when execution proceedings in Ex.No.173/2016 were initiated.
Previous Decisions
The District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru passed order dated 26.06.2015 in PLC No.480/2015 allowing the pre-litigation petition based on an alleged joint memo, recording agreement to pay Rs.4,28,000/- within one year from 01.08.2015. Thereafter, execution proceedings in Ex.No.173/2016 were initiated.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru in P.L.C.No.480/2015 was liable to be quashed on the grounds of fraud, impersonation, forgery of signatures, and lack of notice to the petitioner.
Whether the Authority followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Regulation 10 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 while referring the pre-litigation matter to Lok Adalat.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original petitioner submitted that the original petitioner was not aware of the proceedings, had not engaged counsel Smt. Rupa K., his signatures were forged on the joint memo and vakalath, and that notice purportedly served on his 'boy' was not personal service.
The learned counsel for the legal representatives of original respondent No.1 submitted that there was nothing amiss in the procedure adopted and the filing of the joint memo or the matter being referred to Lok Adalat; the present petition was filed only to circumvent the consequences of the compromise order passed by the Lok Adalat.
Ratio Decidendi
Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine compromise or settlement in pending cases and pre-litigation matters under Section 19(5) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Pre-litigation matters can be referred under Section 20(2) only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. Regulation 10(1A) of NLSA (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 requires a request of any party and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party before reference. Lok Adalat must be guided by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 19 of the Act, 1987 provides for organizing Lok Adalat, qualification of members of Lok Adalats and jurisdiction of Lok Adalats etc.
A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of— (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised
In the case of dispute which is pending before any Court, it is the Court before which matter is pending refers the same for Lok Adalat as contemplated under Section 19 clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19 read with clause (i) and (ii) of sub-section (i) of Section 20 of the Act, 1987.
A pre-litigation matter may be referred to the Lok Adalat by the concerned Legal Services Institution on the request of any of the parties after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.
Procedural History
Original respondent No.1 filed pre-litigation petition PLC No.480/2015 on 18.06.2015 before District Legal Services Authority, Chikkamagaluru, claiming repayment of Rs.4,28,000/- from original petitioner and respondent No.2. Authority issued notices fixing hearing on 25.06.2015; service held sufficient; matter listed to 06.07.2015 for referring to Lok Adalat. On 26.06.2015, counsel for respondent No.1 filed application to prepone; matter referred to Lok Adalat same day; advocate Smt. Rupa K. allegedly filed vakalath and joint memo for petitioner and respondent No.2; authority allowed petition recording agreement to pay Rs.4,28,000/- within one year from 01.08.2015. Thereafter, original respondent No.1 filed execution case Ex.No.173/2016; original petitioner came to know and filed present writ petition challenging order.
Acts & Sections
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Section 19, Section 20
- National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009: Regulation 10, Regulation 12
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 89
