No case To Be Referred To Lok Adalat Except After Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To Parties: Gauhati HC
|The Gauhati High Court held that no case is to be referred to Lok Adalat by any Court, except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties in a dispute.
The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside and quashing the Award of the Lok Adalat, District Legal Service Authority under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Marli Vankung said, “ In the instant case, the present petitioner was not a party in the pending Civil Suit No.6/2009, therefore she was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter.”
Advocate Lalremtluanga appeared for the Petitioner while Advoctae Dinari T. Azyu appeared for the Respondent.
The facts of the case suggested that the present respondent No. 1 is the owner of a property and Pachhunga is the late husband of the present petitioner, who is said to have borrowed the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from respondent No. 4 by mortgaging the property. The respondent No. 1 had then filed the Civil Suit for recovery of his property by making the present respondents as defendants. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the late husband of the present petitioner died but no substitution application was made. However, the matter was then referred by the Senior Civil Judge for settlement at Lok Adalat, whereby the impugned award was made
It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned Lok Adalat Award was liable to be set aside, on the grounds that the Civil Suit was referred to Lok Adalat by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aizawl, wherein the instant petitioner was not made a party. Summons were issued to her and she was compelled to appear before the Lok Adalat under threat and coercion by the police. It was further submitted that the petitioner was also made to sign on the impugned award under threat, whereby, she did not fully understand the terms of the impugned Award.
For the respondent, Lianhrima submitted that the petitioner approached the Court after a delay of almost 3 years. It was also contended that under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, Lok Adalat has the power to summon and enforce attendance of witness and examine thereof, and also have the power to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it.
Considering that the present Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution wherein there is no limitation period prescribed, the Bench found it fit to consider the revision petition on merits.
Referring to sub-section 5 of section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, the Bench said, “On a reading of the above provisions of law, it is clear that, no case is to be referred to Lok Adalat by any Court, except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties in a dispute.”
The High Court also made it clear that Section 22 provides that the Lok Adalat is given the same power, as vested in a Civil Court, under the Court of Civil Procedure, wherein it is given the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath. In the instant case, the present petitioner was not a witness but was made a party in the Lok Adalat proceedings.
The Bench observed that though Sub-section 2 of Section 22 that the Lok Adalat has the power to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it, the Bench added that this cannot include a procedure which is contradictory to what is laid out under Section 19 & 20 of the Act.
In the instant case summons were issued to the petitioner through the OC Police Station Bawngkawn and therefore, it appeared that the present petitioner was under some compulsion to appear before the Lok Adalat. Thus, the Bench set aside the impugned Lok Adalat Award and referred the Civil Suit back to the Senior Civil Judge.
Cause Title:Smt. Sangluri Kolasib Venglai v. H. Lalhmingmawia and 3 Ors [Case No. : CRP/1/2022]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Lalremtluanga
Respondent: Advocate Dinari T. Azyu