GANPATBHAI SHANABHAI MALI vs NATUBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL

Court
Gujarat High Court

C/SCA/14924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240622282026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14924 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GANPATBHAI SHANABHAI MALI & ANR.
Versus
NATUBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RASHESH A PATEL(8802) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 15/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Rashesh Patel, learned advocate for the
petitioners.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, seeking following reliefs:
“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside
the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the Ld. 15th Addl. District
Judge, Vadodara below Review Application No. 1 of 2024
(Annexure - A to the present petition), in the interest of justice;
B. During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition,
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation,
implementation and execution of the order dated 18.06.2026
passed by the Ld. 15th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara below
Review Application No. 1 of 2024 (Annexure - A to the present
petition);
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 13:41:55 IST 2026

C/SCA/14924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240622282026)
C. Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
3. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, would
submit that the Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed
the impugned review application filed by the petitioners under
Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) ,
inasmuch as the compromise recorded before the Appellate
Court in Lok Adalat, whereupon the consent decree passed, is
a fraudulent decree. It is submitted that the Appellate Court
ought to have considered the merits of the application and
required to adjudicate as to whether any fraud played by the
respondent while securing the consent decree in Lok Adalat
rather than dismissing it on the ground that it is not
maintainable.
4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, would
further submit that at the given point of time prior to filing of
review application, the petitioners preferred a writ petition
before this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India being Special Civil Application No.13630 of 2020,
whereby challenged the very same consent decree and order
passed by Appellate Court in the appeal, but such challenged
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 13:41:55 IST 2026

C/SCA/14924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240622282026)
was on a different set of grounds, and due to such reason, the
petitioners did not press the aforesaid writ petition on
19.08.2025.
5. According to Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the
petitioners, the recourse available to the petitioners is only to
approach the Court who recorded the compromise and passed
consent decree, thereby the Appellate Court ought to have
allowed the impugned review application.
6. Having heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the
petitioners, it is an undisputed fact that there was a
compromise entered between the petitioners and the
respondent during the pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal
No.108 of 2019, and such compromise deed was presented
before the Appellate Court in Lok Adalat held on 13.07.2019,
and thereafter, a consent decree came to be passed in Lok
Adalat.
7. It is a settled position of law that any order passed in Lok
Adalat, including the consent decree, the same is not
subjected to any review or recall by the Court concerned, and
the only remedy available to the aggrieved party to such order
is to challenge such order/consent decree by way of writ
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 13:41:55 IST 2026

C/SCA/14924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240622282026)
petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
{ See – Dilip Mehta Vs. Rakesh Gupta reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2737 }. It appears that at given point of time,
the petitioners challenged the very consent decree by filing
writ petition before this Court but for the reasons best known
to them, it was withdrawn with a view to pursue the impugned
review application filed during pendency of the said writ
petition.
8. Since the petitioners preferred the review application
under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for setting aside the
compromise decree recorded in Lok Adalat, such application
was not maintainable in view of Section 21 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987. Thus, the Appellate Court has
correctly not entertained such application and rejected vide its
impugned order dated 18.06.2026.
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the legal position stands as on date; I do not find any merit
in this Petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed
in limine . No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
DEEPAK GEHLOT
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 13:41:55 IST 2026