The single judge set aside an ex parte Lok Adalat judgment, holding it ultra vires as Lok Adalats can only decide upon compromise. The court imposed a cost of Rs.12,000 for the 6-year delay and directed the trial court to conclude the suit by May 2017.
Cost of Rs.12,000 awarded; suit to be concluded by end of May 2017.
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.
C.M.P. No.1618 of 2016
01.11.2016
Heard Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned Additio
nal Government Advocate.
This petition challenges the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the learned Civi
l Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. By the said order, the learned trial court allowed th
e application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the defendants-opposite parties and set as
ide the ex party judgment and decree dated 30.08.1998 and 17.09.1998 respectively passed in T.
S. No. 435 of 1996.
Learned trial court assigned the following reasons and allowed the application
:-
xxx xxx xxx
4. When the CMAs are ready for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a
petition to dispose of the CMAs without evidence in view of the Rulings and decisions of the
Honble Apex Court as to the disposal of cases in Lok Adalat. In support of his contention, th
e learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the decision of our Honble Apex Co
urt reported in 98 (2004) CLT 771 (SC), State of Punjab Vrs. Phoolan Rani, AIR 2008 SC 1209 St
ate of Punjab Vrs. Jalour Singh. In the aforesaid decisions, the Honble Supreme Court have be
en pleased to observe that Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of compromise and settlem
ent between the parties and the Lok Adalat can not dispose of matters not involving compromise
or settlement.
Perused the order sheet of T.S. No. 435/1996 and found that vide order dt. 25.08.1998,
the suit was posted to 30.08.1998 for order in Lok Adalat. But on 28.08.1998 on the strength
of the petition filed by the plaintiff to advance the case record, the case was posted to Lok
Adalat and ultimately, on 30.08.1998 the ex parte judgment was passed on the Lok Adalat held
on that date. So it can be safely concluded that the ex parte judgment is not the outcome of
compromise or settlement between the parties and in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon
ble Apex Court, the matter ought not to be disposed of in the Lok Adalat. Since, the ex parte
judgment has been passed in the Lok Adalat which is not within the ambit and purview of Lok A
dalat is liable to be set aside without going to the merit of the CMA factually as pleaded in
the petition of CMA.
xxx xxx xxx.
The reasons assigned by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfuncto
ry or flawed warranting interference of this Court. But then, there is a delay of near about s
ix years. No cost has been awarded.
In view of the fact that there is a delay of six years, the opposite parties s
hall pay a cost of Rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousands) to Mr. S. Mantry, learned counsel for
the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, the order passed by
the trial court shall automatically recalled.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Since the suit is of the year, 1996,
the learned trial court shall conclude the hearing of the suit by end of May, 2017.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
pm
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an ex parte judgment passed in Lok Adalat without compromise can be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC?
Whether the complaint regarding lack of cost for 6-year delay should be addressed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab Vrs. Phoolan Rani / State of Punjab Vrs. Jalour SinghApplied¶7
98 (2004) CLT 771 (SC), State of Punjab Vrs. Phoolan Rani, AIR 2008 SC 1209 State of Punjab Vrs. Jalour Singh · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite parties
Dr.A.K.Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court