Dismissed¶43

Amruta Mahipati Salunke Since Deceased by His Rls. v. Dadasaheb Namdev Salunke Since Deceased by His Lrs

Bombay HC23 Dec 2025WP/15946/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition dismissed: legal representatives of Amruta Salunke (defendant who had admitted the suit claim in Civil Suit No. 182/2001) challenged the National Lok Adalat decree disposing RCA No. 534/2006 by compromise. Lok Adalat award finality - challenge entertainable only for inherent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or irretrievable injustice; supervisory writ jurisdiction cannot become appellate jurisdiction; route under Articles 226/227 per Jalour Singh (2008) 2 SCC 660 and Dilip Mehta (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737); aggrieved-person test.

What did the court decide?

Having admitted the suit claim, the original Defendant No. 6 (Amruta Salunke), predecessor in title of the petitioners, could not have been an aggrieved party. ¶21

Amruta Mahipati Salunke Since Deceased by His Rls… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, being successors in interest of Amruta Salunke (original Defendant No. 6, subsequently arrayed as Defendant No. 3), who had admitted the plaintiffs' suit claim, can be regarded as persons aggrieved by the decree passed by the National Lok Adalat. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Having admitted the suit claim, the original Defendant No. 6 (Amruta Salunke), predecessor in title of the petitioners, could not have been an aggrieved party.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved by the impugned decree passed by the National Lok Adalat.

¶24

Key takeaways

A challenge to a Lok Adalat award is entertainable in writ jurisdiction only on limited grounds, namely inherent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or irretrievable injustice.ratio¶24
Supervisory writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction against an award passed by the Lok Adalat.ratio¶24
There is no justifiable reason to entertain the petition against the decree passed by the National Lok Adalat in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), N. J. Jamadar, J.; Writ Petition No. 15946 of 2025, decided 23 December 2025. Petition by the legal representatives of Amruta Mahipati Salunke (deceased), successors of the original Defendant No. 6/later Defendant No. 3 in Civil Suit No. 182/2001, against the decree passed by the National Lok Adalat on 03 March 2024 disposing RCA No. 534/2006 (preferred by Dadasaheb Salunke, original Defendant No. 1) in terms of compromise pursis (Exh. 143), with the plaintiffs' cross appeals withdrawn (Exh. 144). The suit had been partly decreed on 28 April 2006, declaring Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 entitled to a 5/12th share in the property mentioned in the will of Late Babu. HELD: (i) the original Defendant No. 6 had admitted the suit claim and could not be an aggrieved party, nor are the petitioners persons aggrieved by the Lok Adalat decree; (ii) a challenge to a Lok Adalat award lies in writ jurisdiction only on limited grounds - inherent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or irretrievable injustice - and supervisory writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction (State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660, relied on; Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737, followed; Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy noted within the quoted passage). Finding no justifiable reason to entertain the petition in extraordinary jurisdiction, the petition stands dismissed.

¶1

22 WP 15946.25.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 15946 OF 2025

¶4

Amruta Mahipati Salunke ..Petitioners Since deceased through her LR’s Versus Dadasaheb Namdev Salunke & Ors. …Respondents

¶5

Mr. Mahesh Barve, for petitioner.

¶6

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 23^rd DECEMBER 2025

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are the successors in interest of Amruta Salunke – the deceased/Defendant No. 3, in Civil Suit No. 182/2001.

¶9

Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSHSUBHASH SUBHASH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date:2025.12.31 14:37:17 +0530

¶10

The Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein, had instituted a suit for declaration, partition and possession of the suit properties described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge, by a judgment and decree dated 28^th April, 2006, partly decreed the said suit declaring, inter alia, that, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, were entitled to 5/12^th share in property mentioned in the will of Late Babu. Rest of the claim of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

¶11

1/6

¶12

SAINATH

¶13

22 WP 15946.25.DOC

¶14

Being aggrieved, the Dadasaheb Salunke, the original Defendant No. 1, and predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1A to 1F, had preferred appeal, being RCA No. 534/2006. The Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the said appeal, had preferred cross appeals. It seems, on 29^th February, 2024, the appellants – Respondent Nos. 1A to 1F filed a pursis to the effect that the Respondent Nos. 6 to 16, including the deceased Amruta Salunke, who was impleaded as Respondent No. 7 in the said appeal, were formal parties. No relief was sought against those respondents. Nor the said respondents had filed a written statement seeking reliefs in their favour. Therefore, the Respondent Nos. 6 to 16 be deleted from the array of the respondents.

¶15

On 03^rd March, 2024, the said Appeal (RCA No. 534/2006) was posted before the National Lok Adalat. The appellants and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to the said appeal filed a compromise pursis before the Lok Adalat and in accordance with the compromise pursis (Exh. 143), the appeal came to be disposed. A decree was directed to be drawn in terms of compromise pursis. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – original plaintiffs also withdrew the cross appeals by filing pursis (Exh. 144).

¶16

2/6

¶17

SAINATH

¶18

22 WP 15946.25.DOC

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the appeals were withdrawn surreptitiously behind the back of the petitioner – Respondent No. 7/original Defendant No. 3. The petitioners were unaware that the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellants had entered into a settlement. The compromise decree operates to the prejudice of the petitioners.

¶20

I have carefully perused the material on record. The learned Civil Judge has recorded in the judgment, whereby the suit was partly decreed that, Amruta Salunke, the predecessor in title of the petitioners – the original Defendant No. 6, who came to be subsequently arrayed as Defendant No. 3, post amendment, had filed written statement at Exh. 214. Late Amruta Salunke had admitted the suit of the plaintiffs. It was contended that, Govind had executed the will dated 17^th November, 1994, and, therefore, the original Defendant No. 6 claimed property as mentioned in the said Will of Govind.

¶21

Evidently, the original Defendant No. 6 had admitted the suit claim. Thus, having admitted the suit claim, the original Defendant No. 6 could not have been an aggrieved party. Even otherwise, if the original Defendant No. 6 was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it was 3/6 SAINATH

¶22

22 WP 15946.25.DOC

¶23

incumbent upon the original Defendant No. 6 to file an appeal against the said decree. When the Court inquired with Mr. Barve, the learned Counsel submitted that, the Defendant No. 6 had indeed filed cross appeal. If that is the case, the cross appeal would be required to be decided independently on its own merits.

¶24

This Court does not find that, the petitioners can be said to be the persons who are aggrieved by the impugned decree passed by the National Lok Adalat. A challenge to the award passed by the Lok Adalat can be entertained in a writ jurisdiction, on limited grounds like inherent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or irretrievable injustice. Supervisory writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction against an award passed by the Lok Adalat.

¶25

In the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors.¹ a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court enunciated that, where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and

1 (2008) 2 SCC 660

4/6

SAINATH

22 WP 15946.25.DOC

¶30

becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds.

¶31

Following the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court expounded the legal position in a recent pronouncement in the case of Dilip Mehta Vs. Rakesh Gupta & Ors² as under:-

¶32

“ 9. This Court has, in a series of decisions, explained the consequence of this statutory finality. In State of

¶33

Punjab V. Jalour Singh (supra), it was held that where an award is made by a Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement between the parties, it is final and binding and executable as a decree, and that no appeal lies against it. It was further held that, any challenge to such an award must be brought before the High Court in proceedings under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and only on limited grounds such as lack of consent, jurisdictional error or fraud. In Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (Supra), this Court applied the same principle to a civil suit which sought to impeach a Lok Adalat

¶34

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737

¶35

5/6

¶36

SAINATH

¶37

22 WP 15946.25.DOC

¶38

award and held that a civil suit to set aside such an award is not maintainable and that the only proper remedy is a writ petition before the High Court.

¶39

The principle that emerges is that the statutory

¶40

finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree. The award may be executed as a decree, but its validity cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating some other civil proceeding as a vehicle for setting it aside. The only recognized avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature.

¶41

(emphasis supplied)

¶42

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to entertain the petition against the decree passed by the National Lok Adalat, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶43

Hence, the petition stands dismissed.

¶44

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶45

6/6

¶46

SAINATH

Amruta Mahipati Salunke Since Deceased by His Rls. v. Dadasaheb Namdev Salunke Since Deceased by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amruta Mahipati Salunke Since Deceased by His Rls. v. Dadasaheb Namdev Salunke Since Deceased by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sayarimal M. Jain vs Sushila Ishwarlal Bhatt and Ors.

Mahesh @ Sagar Vijay Zurunge and Anr. vs Kalavati Shashikant Phule and Ors.

Vitthal Punjaji Pawar (Deceased) through Its Legal Heir Mangesh Vitthalrao Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yashwant Harjeevan Kirad (Since Deceased) and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through G.P and Ors.

Poonam Bharat Kudale vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Minister of Rural Development and Ors.

T. Muthu Lakshmi Wd/O Tirumali Pandaram Thr. Ca v. Maharasi v. Venkatachalam vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.