2019 (11) TMI 1821 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration of owner in possession of the suit property - HELD THAT - Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the aforestated aspect with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court was not specifically raised. However, it is well settled that challenge to a Lok Adalat award can only be on limited grounds and such a challenge would lie only before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution see STATE OF PUNJAB ANR. VERSUS JALOUR SINGH ORS. 2008 (1) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT and BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS ANR. VERSUS KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY ORS. 2017 (9) TMI 1731 - SUPREME COURT . As lack of jurisdiction would go to the root of the matter, the trial Court ought to have been mindful of this aspect when an application was filed before it seeking rejection of the plaint. The order passed by the trial Court holding to the contrary, unmindful of the aforestated legal position, therefore cannot be countenanced. The order passed by the trial Court holding to the contrary, unmindful of the aforestated legal position, therefore cannot be countenanced - the civil revision is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the trial court in entertaining challenge to a Lok Adalat award and rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Jurisdiction of the trial court in entertaining challenge to a Lok Adalat award:
The petitioner filed a revision under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of the application seeking rejection of the plaint by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The respondent sought a declaration that she was the owner of the land and that the compromise and award were null and void. The petitioner argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of a Lok Adalat award based on limited grounds. The High Court cited precedents emphasizing that challenges to Lok Adalat awards should be through a writ petition under Article 226, not in civil courts. The High Court held that lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, and the trial court should have considered this before dismissing the application. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court's order and rejecting the plaint.

Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC:
The petitioner, as the first defendant in the suit, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial court dismissed this application, leading to the petitioner filing a revision petition. The High Court found that the trial court's order was erroneous as it did not consider the jurisdictional aspect of challenging a Lok Adalat award. The High Court emphasized that the trial court should have been mindful of the legal position that challenges to Lok Adalat awards can only be made before the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226. Consequently, the High Court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the trial court's order and rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.