An Order 23 Rule 3 CPC application cannot challenge a Lok Adalat consent decree.

The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Trial Court in proceedings arising from consent decrees drawn in Special Civil Suit No. 115 of 2016 and the connected matter.

The decrees had been passed pursuant to proceedings conducted in the Lok Adalat/National Lok Adalat, with the decree in question being drawn on 11 May 2016.

The respondents subsequently filed applications under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the consent decrees, which were entertained by the Trial Court and resulted in the impugned orders.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court directed the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, to verify whether the orders and decrees had been passed in the Lok Adalat.

The report dated 16 July 2026 confirmed that the decrees in both matters had been passed in the Lok Adalat/National Lok Adalat.

Whether an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable for challenging a consent decree passed by a Lok Adalat?

Whether the respondents could be granted liberty to challenge the Lok Adalat decrees by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, under which an award/decree of a Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties and is not appealable.

It held that, consequently, a consent decree passed in Lok Adalat cannot be challenged through an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such an application is not maintainable.

The Court relied on State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660, which affirms the finality and non-appealable character of Lok Adalat awards.

The Court further recognised that an aggrieved party may, in accordance with law, invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to challenge the Lok Adalat decree.

The Principal Senior Civil Judge’s report, considered along with the contents of the decrees, established that the decrees were passed in Lok Adalat proceedings.

Since Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act renders such decrees final and non-appealable, the respondents could not use Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC proceedings to question their validity.

The Trial Court’s orders entertaining or acting upon those applications were therefore legally unsustainable.

The High Court nevertheless preserved the respondents’ right to pursue an appropriate writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, while expressly clarifying that it had not examined the merits of any challenge to the consent decrees and that all parties’ substantive contentions remained open.

The respondents’ applications under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, identified as CMA SC/92 and 35/2025, were rejected as not maintainable.

Liberty was reserved to the respondents to challenge the Lok Adalat consent decrees, if advised, by an appropriate writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court made the Rule absolute and imposed no order as to costs.