2008 (12) TMI 791 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Lok Adalat's Award
2. Dismissal of the Second Appeal for Default
3. Refusal to Restore the Second Appeal

Summary:

1. Legality of the Lok Adalat's Award:
The appellants, defendants in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, had their second appeal referred to the Lok Adalat by the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee. The Lok Adalat, consisting of two retired Judges, purported to pass an 'award' on 25.5.2007, directing the appellants to vacate certain buildings by 31.7.2007. However, the Supreme Court noted that "Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions" and their role is purely conciliatory. The Lok Adalat's 'award' was deemed erroneous and illegal as it was made without a final settlement between the parties, which is a prerequisite for such an award.

2. Dismissal of the Second Appeal for Default:
The second appeal was listed for final hearing on 19.8.2008. The appellants' counsel requested an adjournment due to personal inconvenience, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the appeal for default. The Supreme Court highlighted that "a court should not permit any prejudice to creep into its judicial mind" and that the dismissal was influenced by the perceived unreasonable conduct of the appellants before the Lok Adalat, which was irrelevant to the merits of the case.

3. Refusal to Restore the Second Appeal:
An application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 20.8.2008, supported by an affidavit from the appellants' counsel citing severe ear pain as the reason for her absence. The learned Single Judge dismissed this application on 29.8.2008, stating that the appellants were "cantankerous litigants" protracting the litigation. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, emphasizing that "no party can be punished for failing to reach the settlement before the Lok Adalat" and that any prejudice against a party due to their conduct before an ADR forum violates the guarantee against bias in the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and restored the second appeal for disposal on merits. The Court requested the Hon. Chief Justice to assign the appeal to another learned Judge, clarifying that this was not a reflection on the judicial integrity of the original Judge.