FEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS ON THE ISSUE THAT THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT BASED ON A COMPROMISE HAS TO BE TREATED AS A DECREE CAPABLE OF EXECUTION BY A CIVIL COURT.

FEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS ON THE ISSUE THAT THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT BASED ON A COMPROMISE HAS TO BE TREATED AS A DECREE CAPABLE OF EXECUTION BY A CIVIL COURT.

Sl. No.	TITLE & CITATION	RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS
1.	K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D. Shaji, (2011) 11 SC CK 0019	Para No.4(a), 4(c), 4(d) and 17 4. Brief facts: (a) The Appellant herein filed a complaint being C.C. No. 1216 of 2007 before the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate Court No. 1, Ernakulam against the Respondent herein u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short `the Negotiable Instruments Act''). The Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Ernakulam District Legal Service Authority for trying the case for settlement between the parties in the Lok Adalat. (c) As the Respondent did not pay any of the installments as per the settlement, the Appellant filed execution petition being E.P. No..... of 2009 in C.C. No. 1216 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam for seeking the execution of the award. On 23.09.2009, the Principal Munsiff Judge, Ernakulam dismissed the petition holding that the award passed by the Lok Adalat on reference from the Magistrate Court cannot be construed as a "decree" executable by the civil court. (d) Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 33013 of 2009 before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court, vide order dated 24.11.2009, dismissed the writ petition. 17. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: (1.) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court. (2.) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. (3.) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. (4.) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.
2.	Subhash Narasappa Mangrule, Partnership Firm, Narasappa ... Vs. Sidramappa Jagdevappa Unnad  (2009) 01 BOM CK 0070	Para No.14 to 17 14. Admittedly, by the consent of the parties, as parties have voluntarily agreed and settled the matter, the Lok Adalat on 20th July, 2003 has passed the award which has force of decree under the act. The complaint was disposed of accordingly. The Petitioners did not comply with the same award therefore, the execution application filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners (Judgment Debtors). 15. Section 20 of the Act empowers to take cognizance by the Lok Adalat, when both the parties jointly make an application indicating their intention to compromise, which covers the proceeding u/s 138 of the N.I. Act & even as per Circular No. MSLSA/Adalat/12/2005/848 dated 25/06/2001, issued by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. The compromise in question as recorded is within the framework of law and the record. Section 21 further mandates that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decreed of Civil Court and the same shall be final and binding on all the parties. Such order is not even appealable. Other party/Judgment Debtor/accused if refused to make the payment pursuance to the award, the decree holder/Respondent/Complainant has no choice but to file such execution application. 16. The parties were fully aware that under the Act, the District Legal Services Authority may explore the possibility of holding pre-litigation Lok Adalats in respect of the cheque bouncing cases. The compromise in such cases would be treated as Award having force of a decree. All objections as raised with regard to the execution in view of above statutory provisions itself is rightly rejected. Having settled the matter in Lok Adalat and now after more than 3 years raising such plea is untenable. Having obtained the award from Lok Adalat, the party is not permitted to resile from the same. It attains finality to the dispute between the parties finally and binds all. Therefore, the order in this regard need no interference. 17. Once the parties entered into compromise before the Lok Adalat, & at that time no question of any pecuniary jurisdiction raised and or required to be considered by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, once the award is passed, it is executable under C.P.C. There is no dispute as recorded that as per the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 (Amended Act- 1998) the peculiar jurisdiction of Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division is restricted to one lack rupees. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to dismiss the execution application on that count. It will frustrate the whole object of settlement and the award under the Act. The Petitioners got the benefit of settlement and yet not paid the amount till this date.
3.	Valarmathi Oil Industries and K. Srinivasan Vs. Saradhi Ginning Factory, (2009) 04 MAD CK 0338	Para No.14 14. In such circumstances, the petitioners could have filed the Execution Petition before the appropriate court, seeking the award amount to be paid with interest and costs. In such circumstances, it is clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate became functus officio, to decide the case after the award passed by Lok Adalat, to convict the accused u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is also not sustainable in law, however, it is clear that the petitioners/accused herein after having given consent for Lok Adalat award being passed and also the award amount agreed to pay Rs. 3,75,000/- on or before 03.09.2007 to the respondent, have not complied with their undertaking made before the Lok Adalat, which cannot be justified. However, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has to be set aside, in view of the Lok Adalat award passed u/s 20(1)(i)(b), 20(1)(ii) of Legal Services Authorities Act (Act, 39/1987), as the Judicial Magistrate became functus officio and the award is an executable decree in the eye of law, as per Section 21 of the Act.
4.	Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2002) 12 SC CK 0059	Para No.33 33. The purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well- known. When a legal fiction is created, it must be given is full effect. In East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1951) 2 All .E. R. 587, Lord Asquith J. stated the law in the following terms:-"If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitable have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs."
5.	Ittianam and Others Vs. Cherichi alias Padmini, (2010) 07 SC CK 0026	Para No.17 17. It is well known when legislature uses a deeming provision to create a legal fiction, it is always used to achieve a purpose. In State of Travancore-Cochin and others Vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, Quilon, reported in AIR 1953 SC 333 , the Constitution Bench opined, when a legal fiction is created, one is led to ask at once for what purpose it is created (see para 38 page 343).
6.	State of Punjab and Another Vs. Jalour Singh and Others, (2008) 01 SC CK 0020	Para No.7 The "award'' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat
7.	B.P. Moideen Sevamandir and Another Vs. A.M. Kutty Hassan, (2008) 12 SC CK 0152	Para No.8 The ''award'' of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.
8.	P.T. Thomas Vs. Thomas Job, (2005) 08 SC CK 0040	Para No.18 18. In Punjab National Bank vs. Lakshmichand Rah reported in AIR 2000 Madhya Pradesh 301, 304, the High Court held that "The provisions of the Act shall prevail in the matter of filing an appeal and an appeal would not lie under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C. Lok Adalat is conducted under an independent enactment and once the award is made by Lok Adalat the right of appeal shall be governed by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act when it has been specifically barred under Provisions of Section 21(2), no appeal can be filed against the award u/s 96 C.P.C." The Court further stated that "It may incidentally be further seen that even the CPC does not provide for an appeal u/s 96 against a consent decree. The CPC also intends that once a consent decree is passed by Civil Court finality is attached to it. Such finality cannot be permitted to be destroyed, particularly under the Legal Services Authorities Act, as it would amount to defeat the very aim and object of the Act with which it has been enacted, hence, we hold that the appeal filed is not maintainable.

OR

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com