Civil suits cannot challenge Lok Adalat awards, even by non-parties, Karnataka High Court rules; writ petition is the remedy

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 936/2018 seeking a declaration that a compromise decree recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 31 October 2008 was null and void and could not affect his rights in the ‘A’ schedule property, together with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring that property.

Defendants Nos. 3, 5 to 10 applied under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that the suit was barred; the trial court dismissed the application.

The defendants challenged that dismissal in this revision petition.

Whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge a Lok Adalat award, including where the plaintiff claims that the award is not binding on him.

Whether rejecting the challenge to the award while leaving the injunction claim would amount to impermissible partial rejection of the plaint.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC permits rejection of a plaint where the pleaded case is barred by law; Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC bars a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree.

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, which it understood to hold that a Lok Adalat award cannot be challenged through an ordinary civil suit and that any challenge to its validity must be pursued through the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction; this applies to parties and third parties alike.

The Court also applied the principle that an injunction dependent on the success of a substantive claim is consequential and cannot independently sustain the suit where the underlying claim is not maintainable.

The suit’s central relief sought to impeach the Lok Adalat award and prevent its asserted effect on the plaintiff’s property rights. The Court held that Dilip Mehta governed that challenge and foreclosed an ordinary civil suit, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s asserted non-party status; remand was unnecessary because the issue was one of law and the trial court could not reach a contrary result.

The injunction claim was not independent: it depended on the plaintiff succeeding on the underlying challenge to the award. Accordingly, rejecting the plaint would not constitute partial rejection merely because the plaint also sought an injunction.

It set aside the trial court’s order, allowed I.A. No. XXVII under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejected the plaint, and allowed the civil revision petition.