Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 901 (PAT)

Shambhu Nath Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2013-07-30

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the order/ award dated 12.7.2007 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabua in pre-litigative Case No.410 of 2007. He also wants quashing of order dated 28.11.2007 by virtue of which an amended compromise petition was allowed to be filed and a final award dated 12.7.2007 came to be passed partitioning the property of the parties to the so-called dispute. 2. Though after notice power has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and 4, only respondent no.4 has chosen to appear and assist. There is no representation on behalf of respondent no.3, who is said to be the mastermind to usurp the entire ancestral property and by manipulating the so-called compromise petition showing the petitioner to be dead. 3. The law is well settled on this issue in many cases, one of them being the case of the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited v. State of Bihar & others, which is CWJC No.9222 of 2009, decided on 19.7.2010 that an award given by permanent Lok Adalat is vulnerable if it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Though the law talks in terms of embargo against any challenge to be made to the award of the Lok Adalat, however, keeping in mind the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & another v. Jalour Singh & others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209 and in the case of United India Insurance Col. Limited v. Ajay Sinha & another, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2398 as well as that of a Bench of this Court since fraud goes to the root of the matter, the award is assailable both before a writ court as well as before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 4. No affidavit in opposition as such has been filed on behalf of the private respondents, meaning thereby that there is no denial of the assertion made in the writ application. The object of creation of a Lok Adalat is not to defraud litigants and derive personal benefits by misusing of a forum of judicial kind. It is for settlement of bona fide dispute. 5. The object of creation of a Lok Adalat is not to defraud litigants and derive personal benefits by misusing of a forum of judicial kind. It is for settlement of bona fide dispute. 5. Since in the present case there is fraud played by respondent no.3 to show partition of the family property by ousting the petitioner from his share by showing him to be dead etc., the impugned orders contained in Annexure- 1 series and the award contained in Annexure- 2 are hereby quashed. Writ application is allowed. Parties are free to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction, if they so want.