Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta - Lok Adalat Award - Writ Petition - Execution Proceedings

Constitution of India - Article 226 ; Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987- High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Lok Adalat decree on the ground that petitioner had already filed objections before the Executing Court - Allowing appeal, SC held: Once the decree which is sought to be executed is one that merely embodies a Lok Adalat award under the LSA Act, the role of the Executing Court is confined to giving effect to that award in terms of execution. It has no authority to annul or set aside the award itself, or the decree drawn in its terms, nor can it sit in judgment over the validity of the compromise on which the Lok Adalat proceeded. Treating the filing of objections in such execution as an “efficacious alternative remedy” for challenging the award is therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme - The form of the pleading cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Executing Court beyond what the LSA Act and the CPC permit, nor can it convert a limited execution forum into a court of appeal over a Lok Adalat award. Equally, such resort to execution, compelled by the imminent threat of dispossession, cannot be treated as an election of remedy that forecloses recourse to the only effective avenue which the law recognises for challenging a Lok Adalat award, namely a writ petition before the High Court. (Para 11-14)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987- Section 21, 22E - The statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy against the award treated as a decree. The award may be executed as a decree, but its validity cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating some other civil proceeding as a vehicle for setting it aside. The only recognised avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature. (Para 10)