Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Ruling That Lok Adalat Compromise Was Not Binding On Man Who Denied Signing It, As Defendants Failed To Contest Suit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the defendants’ challenge to the concurrent findings raised a substantial question of law warranting admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The court held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and declined to admit the second appeal.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, with no order as to costs; a decree was directed to be drawn accordingly.

01Facts

Handa sued to have a judgment and decree passed through the Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2000 declared void, alleging that he had not entered into the compromise and that the signatures on it were not his. He relied on handwriting-expert evidence.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring the Lok Adalat decree void and not binding on Handa.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal, noting that, despite opportunities after remand, they had not filed a written statement and had remained ex parte.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5

The defendants brought this second appeal, challenging, among other things, the reliance on the handwriting expert and the adequacy of the opportunity to defend.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the defendants’ challenge to the concurrent findings raised a substantial question of law warranting admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 8–14

ii.2. Whether the defendants’ claims concerning the handwriting-expert evidence and the opportunity to file a written statement disclosed an error of law or other basis for interference under Section 100 CPC

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 6, 12–14

03Law Applied

Section 100 CPC confines the High Court’s second-appellate jurisdiction to cases involving a substantial question of law, which must exist before the appeal can be entertained.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, the Supreme Court held that such a question is a prerequisite to exercising that jurisdiction.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545 explains that a substantial question of law must materially affect the parties’ rights and is not merely a factual question or the application of settled law to facts.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

Under Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (2020) 19 SCC 57, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence as a first appellate court or interfere with concurrent factual findings merely because another view is possible.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

The Court also relied on U. Sudheera v. C. Yashoda (2025) 4 SCC 215 for the proposition that, absent a substantial question of law, a second appeal should be dismissed at the admission stage.

p. 5 · ¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The Court found that the defendants had an opportunity to contest Handa’s allegation that he had not compromised the earlier suit, but failed to raise a defence before the Trial Court and remained silent.

p. 6 · ¶ 12

It held that they could not use the appeal to advance a challenge they had not pursued at the appropriate stage.

p. 6 · ¶ 12

Both lower courts had considered the available material and recorded reasoned findings; the defendants did not demonstrate perversity, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or application of an incorrect legal principle.

p. 6 · ¶ 13

The complaints about the expert evidence and opportunity to defend therefore did not disclose a substantial question of law permitting interference under Section 100 CPC.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 14–15