Summary
The Court held that a civil suit challenging a compromise-based Lok Adalat award was barred even when fraud and misrepresentation were alleged. The remedy under binding Supreme Court precedent was a petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 on limited grounds. “Law” in Order VII Rule 11(d) included judicial precedent. It restored rejection of the plaint while preserving liberty to pursue the proper writ remedy without deciding the merits.
Issues
- Whether fraud allegations permitted a civil suit to challenge a Lok Adalat settlement award.
- Whether “barred by any law” in Order VII Rule 11(d) included binding judicial precedent.
Held
- Under the binding three-judge decision in State of Punjab v Jalour Singh, a settlement-based Lok Adalat award was final and binding, with challenge available through Articles 226 and/or 227 on very limited grounds. Fraud allegations did not justify bypassing that prescribed remedy by civil suit. (¶¶ 25–29, 37)
- “Law” in Order VII Rule 11(d) was not confined to legislative enactments; it included authoritative judicial precedents, including law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141. The Court approved the cited High Court decisions adopting that interpretation. (¶ 30–36)
- The High Court’s restoration of the civil suit was set aside and the trial court’s rejection of the plaint restored. The plaintiffs could challenge the award by the appropriate writ petition, with all merits left to that court uninfluenced by the present observations. (¶ 38–41)
Result
Defendants’ appeal allowed; plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d), with liberty to challenge the award under Articles 226 and/or 227; merits not examined.