2017 (9) TMI 1731 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - remedy available to the person aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act - Held that - The only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing. The High Court was, therefore, not right in by passing the law laid down by this Court on the ground that the suit can be filed to challenge the award, if the challenge is founded on the allegations of fraud. In our opinion, it was not correct approach of the High Court to deal with the issue in question to which we do not concur. Interpretation of the expression law occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code - whether the expression law occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code includes judicial decisions of the Apex Court ? - Held that - Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the Courts including higher judiciary is also law. When this Court has laid down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India - It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case. Impugned order is set aside and that of the order passed by the Trial Court is restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a civil suit challenging the Lok Adalat award.
2. Interpretation of "barred by any law" under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Appropriate remedy for challenging a Lok Adalat award.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Civil Suit Challenging the Lok Adalat Award:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether a civil suit challenging the Lok Adalat award on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation is maintainable. The plaintiffs argued that the award dated 22.08.2007 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, thus making it illegal, null, and void. The defendants contended that the civil suit was barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the appropriate remedy was to file a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Interpretation of "Barred by Any Law" Under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The Supreme Court examined whether the expression "barred by any law" in Order 7 Rule 11(d) includes judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court referred to the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660, where it was held that the only remedy to challenge a Lok Adalat award is by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that "law" includes judicial precedents, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary and Jowett’s Dictionary of English Law, and supported by decisions from the Allahabad, Gujarat, Bombay, and Jharkhand High Courts.

3. Appropriate Remedy for Challenging a Lok Adalat Award:
The Supreme Court reiterated the legal position established in State of Punjab (supra) that the challenge to a Lok Adalat award can only be made through a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution. The Court found that the High Court erred in allowing the civil suit to proceed on the grounds of fraud, as the appropriate remedy was to file a writ petition. The Court held that the High Court bypassed the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court, which mandates that challenges to Lok Adalat awards must be addressed through writ petitions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code. The Court clarified that the plaintiffs are at liberty to challenge the Lok Adalat award by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court. The Court also emphasized that it did not examine the merits of the case, and the writ court should decide the writ petition strictly in accordance with the law.