Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 107 (PAT)

Panna Lal Prasad v. Manoj Kumar Gupta

2012-01-18

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO

body2012
ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar in pre-litigation case No.18 of 2011. 3. It appears that a pre-litigation case No.18 of 2011 was filed by the applicant-respondent against the opposite party-respondent in the Permanent Lok Adalat without making the present petitioner a party in the pre-litigation case. The petitioner claimed himself to be the full brother of the applicant and the pre-litigation case was filed for partition of the joint family property. The parties to the pre-litigation case compromised and on the basis of the compromise, the Lok Adalat passed the award. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said award on the ground that he was not made party in the pre-litigation case and that the respondent by playing fraud on the Permanent Lok Adalat obtained the Award. By the impugned order, the Permanent Lok Adalat rejected the application on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the said Misc. case. 4. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Chaubey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 have got no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cases which were not pending before any Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is the own brother of the applicant in the pre-litigation case and the subject mater of the pre-litigation case was the joint family property, therefore, the Judgment and Decree is vitiated. In such circumstances, the Award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is liable to be set side. The learned counsel further submitted that since the fraud was played upon the Permanent Lok Adalat by concealing the fact and mis-representation, the Permanent Lok Adalat has the jurisdiction to decide this question and record a finding regarding fraud. He relied upon a decision reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 201 SC. A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Others. 5. From perusal of the aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court, it appears that the Apex Court held that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. He relied upon a decision reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 201 SC. A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Others. 5. From perusal of the aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court, it appears that the Apex Court held that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hand. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other scrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenience lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 6. At paragraph 31 of the said Judgment, it has been held that the Judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall its Judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting side the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature of and the Constitution of the tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court’s business. 7. The learned counsel relying on paragraph 32 also on the said Judgment submitted that the Apex Court has held that the tribunal has also the jurisdiction to recall the order passed by the tribunal if it is found that by playing fraud on the tribunal the order was obtained. 8. 7. The learned counsel relying on paragraph 32 also on the said Judgment submitted that the Apex Court has held that the tribunal has also the jurisdiction to recall the order passed by the tribunal if it is found that by playing fraud on the tribunal the order was obtained. 8. So far the submission of the learned counsel that the Permanent Lok Adalat have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any litigation which are not pending before any Court is concerned, I do not agree with the learned counsel because Section 19 of Section 5 clause 2 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 clearly provides that any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction and is not brought before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is recognized can be taken into cognizance by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The learned counsel next submitted that the concept of pre-litigation is mentioned in Chapter 6A of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 under Section 22 of the said Act which is not mentioned in either Section 19 of the Legal Service Authority Act or Section 20 of the Legal Service Authority Act. So far this submission is concerned, it may be mentioned here that in the case of State of Punjab Vrs. Jalour Singh 2008 (2) S.C.C. 660 , the Apex Court at paragraph 7 has held that Section 20 relates to the cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalat. Sub section (1) refers to the Lok Adalat taking cognizance of cases referred to by Courts and sub section (2) refers to the Lok Adalat taking cognizance of matters at pre-litigation stage. Therefore, in view of the decision, the submission of the learned counsel that Lok Adalat have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases not referred to it has got no force. So far the decision relied upon by the petitioner referred to above is concerned, the said decisions speaks about the Courts and the tribunals which have been authorized to record evidence and to come into the conclusion regarding fraud. 9. In the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs. N. Satchidanand 2011 (7) SCC 463 , the Apex Court has held at paragraph 32 and 33 as follows : “32. 9. In the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs. N. Satchidanand 2011 (7) SCC 463 , the Apex Court has held at paragraph 32 and 33 as follows : “32. We may also at this juncture refer to the confusion caused on account of the term Permanent Lok Adalat being used to describe two different types of Lok Adalats. The LSA Act refers to two types of Lok Adalats. The first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act which has no adjudicatory functions or powers and which discharges purely conciliatory functions. The second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions. The expression “Permanent Lok Adalat” should refer only to Permanent Lok Adalats established under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act and not to the Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19. However, in many States, when Lok Adalats are constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act for regular or continuous sittings (as contrasted from periodical sittings), they are also called as Permanent Lok Adalats even though they do not have adjudicatory functions. 33. In LIC v. Suresh Kumar 2011 (7) SCC 491 , this Court observed : “It is needless to state that Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis, as such, between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at an agreed settlement between the parties has failed.” The said decision refers to such a “Permanent Lok Adalat” organized under Section 19 of the Act and should not be confused with Permanent Lok Adalats constituted under Section 22-B(1) of the Act. To avoid confusion, the State Legal Services Authorities and the High Courts may ensure that Lok Adlats other than the Permanent Lok Adalats established under Section 22-B(1) of the Act in regard to public utility services, are not described as Permanent Lok Adalats. One way of avoiding the confusion is to refer to the Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 of the Act on a regular or permanent basis as “Continuous Lok Adalats”. Be that as it may.” 10. In another case, i.e. 2011 (7) SCC 491 Life Insurance Corporation Vs. One way of avoiding the confusion is to refer to the Lok Adalats constituted under Section 19 of the Act on a regular or permanent basis as “Continuous Lok Adalats”. Be that as it may.” 10. In another case, i.e. 2011 (7) SCC 491 Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Suresh Kumar, the Apex Court again held that the Permanent Lok Adalat is not a regular Court authorized to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on merits. It is needless to state that Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction or authority vested in it to decide any lis as such between the parties even where the attempt to arrive at agreed such settlement between the parties has failed. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.14426 of 2009 disposed of on 06.11.2009 Meena Chaudhary Vs. Dr. Dilip Chaudhary held that power of Lok Adalat are not co-extensive with that of Civil Courts who have full power to take evidence including oral evidence and also to exercise necessary power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that in that case also, the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat was challenged by the petitioner on the ground of fraud. The Division Bench observing as above held that the petitioners will be entitled to invoke plenary jurisdiction of Civil Court to claim necessary relief on the ground of fraud or any grounds available to the petitioner No.1. In view of the settled proposition of law, if the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 have got adjudicatory function to decide the lis how can the said Permanent Lok Adalat now decide the lis, i.e., the dispute which is being raised by the petitioner that a fraud was played by the respondents on the Permanent Lok Adalat. Now, if it is held that the Permanent Lok Aalat should decide this lis in my opinion that will be against the scheme of the Act itself. (12) In the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Ganpat Raj 2006 (8) SCC 364 , the Apex Court has held at paragraph 7 as follows : “7. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. Ganpat Raj 2006 (8) SCC 364 , the Apex Court has held at paragraph 7 as follows : “7. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucial terms in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 are “compromise” and “settlement”. The former expression means settlement of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Terms de la Ley, “compromise is mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy”. As per Bouvier it is “an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree upon”. The word “compromise” implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. “Settlement” is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the disposal of Civil Writ Petition NO.943 of 2000 filed by the respondent is clearly impermissible.” 13. In view of the above settled principle of law, the Permanent Lok Adalat can pass award only on the basis of agreement between the parties, i.e., compromise. If there is no compromise, the Permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass any order. No Lok Adalat has the power to hear parties to adjudicate cases as a Court does. The Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement arrived at by the parties with guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat. “Award” of Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of Award is merely an Administrative Act of incorporating the terms of compromise in the form of an executable order under the seal of Lok Adalat. It cannot be said that so far the Misc. case is concerned, now there will be compromise between the parties. The making of Award is merely an Administrative Act of incorporating the terms of compromise in the form of an executable order under the seal of Lok Adalat. It cannot be said that so far the Misc. case is concerned, now there will be compromise between the parties. Therefore, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to settle the present dispute raised by the present petitioner and, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the Misc. application. Therefore, the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat will never bind the present petitioner. 14. In the Division Bench of this High Court referred to above, it has clearly been held that as proposition of law, it is well established that a person who was not party, the proceeding will not be bound by any order passed therein unless he / she was impleaded through a representative like karta or an authorized agent who may in appropriate situation represent others. 15. With this observation, this writ application is dismissed.