The High Court of Chhattisgarh refused to quash an order dismissing a writ petition. The Chief Justice held that a Lok Adalat order dismissing a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on simple withdrawal was not a decree, and thus did not bar a fresh suit filed by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AFR
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP (227) No. 919 of 2019
Reserved On : 09.07.2020
Delivered On : 10.08.2020
Harsha Dewani, D/o Harish Dewani, Aged About 27 Years, Ex. Assistant Professor, R/o Getanjali Nagar, Street No. 4 Kashyap Colony, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus
Ashutosh Gupta, S/o Narayan Prasad Gupta, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kashyap Colony, Street No. 4, Police Station City Kotwali, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Paranjpe, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
CAV Order
Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 285A/2019.
Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10
learned Family Court without appreciating the facts and law, has passed the impugned order and dismissed the prayer made by the petitioner.
Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10
previous application, have remained undecided, therefore, the present petition has no substance, which may be dismissed.
Page 6 of 10
settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1987.
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”
that an award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of civil court, which includes the order on compromise or settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat. As per definition of decree under section 2 sub-section 2 of the C.P.C., 'decree' means formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. The word 'award' has not been defined in the Act, 1987 or in the C.P.C., 1908. Reference of award is seen in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”). There is brief mention in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 1996 about the interim arbitral award. Chapter 6 of this Act provides for making of arbitral award and termination of procedure, which implies simple decision making by the arbitrator or arbitrators.
Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10
power of Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Act, 1987, it is clearly found that Lok Adalat has no authority to exercise the power under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The Lok Adalat on taking cognizance in any matter, referred to it from a court, can act only in accordance with Section 20 sub-section 4, 5 & 6 of the Act, 1955 and there is no mention that the Lok Adalat can allow the withdrawal of the civil suit, therefore, the order passed in the Civil Suit No. 258A/2017 on 08.12.2018, is not found to be within scope and power of the Lok Adalat. Therefore, this order has no force under the law. It had been a simple case of abandonment by the respondent side before the Lok Adalat, which was not competent to pass any such order. Hence, it is held that the order dated 08.12.2018 having no legality and not passed by the competent court in exercise of the law empowering such court, is not an order at all.
Page 9 of 10
Act, 1955. This appear to be the circumstance, present is the case in favour of the respondent for bringing the second civil suit. There is no need to mention that by the order dated 08.12.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 258A/2017, the dispute between the parties was neither settled nor compromised. However, on the basis of the finding hereinabove, this order does not have force of decree in any respect. Apart from that, this order is not decree in accordance with definition under Section 2 sub-section 2 of the C.P.C. The order dated 08.12.2018 is nullity and is no order in the eyes of law, therefore, it cannot be said that Order 23 Rule 1 & 4 has come into operation to restrain the respondent for instituting present suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Page 10 of 10
Sd/(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Arun
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a simple withdrawal order passed by Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 operates as a bar under Order 23 Rules 1 and 4 of the CPC to prevent a fresh suit.
Whether the principle of res judicata applies to an order dismissing a civil suit on simple withdrawal without adjudication on the merits.
Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the writ petition challenging the maintainability of a repeat divorce suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Somesh Pandeya & others Vs. Viseshwawr Prasad PandeyaExplained¶28
Dr. Somesh Pandeya & others Vs. Viseshwawr Prasad Pandeya, Second Appeal No. 233/2014
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Harsha Dewani
Ashutosh Gupta
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
