Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court considered the validity of the Lok Adalat settlement, which was challenged by a non-party to the original proceedings. The court extended the interim relief previously granted, thereby continuing the stay on the execution proceedings until the next hearing scheduled on 18th November 2024.
Facts:
The petitioner is the original decree holder, who sought the execution of an award that was settled in Lok Adalat. However, the validity of the said settlement was challenged by Respondent No. 1, who was not a party to the original litigation or the Lok Adalat award. The executing court had restored the “Darkhat” and condoned the delay by its order dated 18th April 2023. This order is the subject of the current writ petition.
Issues:
- Whether a non-party to the original litigation has the locus standi to challenge a settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat.
- Whether the execution proceedings can be stayed based on a challenge by a third party.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that a non-party does not have the right to challenge a Lok Adalat settlement. The counsel relied on the observations made in the case of Bharvagi Constructions and Ors. vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors., asserting that only a party to the litigation can challenge the Lok Adalat award, and that such challenges must typically be brought forth by a writ petition.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent was not present during the hearing. Thus, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondent.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the nature of Lok Adalat settlements, which are governed by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The essence of these settlements is to provide an amicable resolution between parties directly involved in the litigation. Challenges to these awards generally need to adhere to the procedural framework laid down under the Act.
Precedent Analysis:
The petitioner’s reliance on Bharvagi Constructions emphasized that the Supreme Court has previously held that non-parties do not possess the standing to challenge a Lok Adalat settlement. This position was instrumental in the petitioner’s argument that Respondent No. 1 could not lawfully intervene in the execution proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court, considering the arguments and the cited precedents, observed that prima facie, the challenge by a non-party seemed to be beyond the scope of permissible legal remedies. However, in the interest of justice and given the lack of representation by the respondent, the court decided to extend the interim relief previously granted.
Conclusion:
The court extended the interim relief until the next hearing, thereby maintaining the status quo in the execution proceedings.
Implications:
This order underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity of Lok Adalat settlements and clarifies the limited grounds on which such awards can be challenged. It sets a precedent that non-parties generally lack standing to intervene in such cases, reinforcing the principle that settlements through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are binding on the parties involved.
