TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - whether the expression "law" occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code includes "judicial decisions of the Apex Court"? - Held that:- Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the Courts including higher judiciary is also law. When this Court has laid down a particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of Lok Adalat then in our view, the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India - It is then for the writ court to decide as to what orders need to be passed on the facts arising in the case. Impugned order is set aside and that of the order passed by the Trial Court is restored - appeal allowed. - CIVIL APPEAL No.11345 OF 2017, S.L.P.(C) No.23605 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - Mr. R.K. AGRAWAL And Mr. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ORDER Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in terms of the compromise petition, which, in turn, disposed of the suit as having been compromised. (Annexure P-2). 10) On 14.11.2009, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (who were original defendant Nos. 22 to 25 in Suit No. 481 of 2007) filed Civil Suit No. 107 of 2010 against the plaintiff and the remaining defendants of Civil Suit No. 481 of 2007. This suit was filed in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 11) This suit was for a declaration that the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No. 481 of 2007 was obtained by the defendants of this suit by playing fraud/misrepresentation on the plaintiffs and hence the Award dated 22.08.2007 be declared illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. 12) According to the plaintiffs, though they were parties to the award along with defendants in Civil Suit No. 481/2007 but since the award dated 22.08.2007 was obtained by the parties by misrepresenting the facts to the plaintiffs which was nothing short of fraud played by the defendants on them to grab their more land without their knowledge and taking advantage of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court was right whereas the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was not so and hence the Trial Court's order deserves to be restored. 19) Elaborating his submission, Mr. Dushyant Dave placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in State of Punjab (supra) and contended that the issue urged by him no longer remains res integra and stands answered by this Court in appellant's favour. 20) It was his submission that the expression barred by any law occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 not only includes any Act enacted by the legislature creating a bar but the expression law includes therein judicial decision of the Supreme Court also, which are binding on all the Courts in the Country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 21) In other words, his submission was that the expression law occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 should be construed liberally so as to include therein not only any Act which is admittedly a law made by the legislature but also include therein a a decision of Supreme Court . 22) Learned counsel urged that the appellants (defendants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits. 27) In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject and held in para 15 as under: 15. Law includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An authoritative judgment of the Courts including higher judiciary is also law. 33) This very issue was again considered by the Gujarat High Court (Single Bench) in the case of Hermes Marines Limited vs. Capeshore Maritime Partners F.Z.C. Anr. (unreported decision in Civil Application (OJ) No.144 of 2016 in Admiralty Suit No.10 of 2016 decided on 22.04.2016). The learned Single Judge examined the issue and relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court quoted supra held in Para 53 as under: 53. In the light of the above discussion, in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be said that the term barred by any law occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code, ought to be read to mean only the law codified in a legislative enactment and not the law laid down by the Courts in judicial precedents. The judicial precedent of the Supreme Court in Liverpool London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association vs. M.V. Sea Success, 2004(9) SCC 512 has been followed by the decision of the Division Bench in Croft Sales Distribution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .4377. The learned Judge, in paragraph 7 held as under: 7. In the background of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. application is maintainable only when the suit is barred by any law. The expression law included in Rule 11(d) includes Law of Limitation and, it would also include the law declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court 36) We are in agreement with the view taken by Allahabad, Gujarat, Bombay and Jharkhand High Courts in the aforementioned four decisions which, in our opinion, is the proper interpretation of the expression law occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. This answers the first submission of the learned counsel for the respondents against the respondents. 37) So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it also has no merit. In our view, the decision rendered in the case of State of Punjab (supra) is by the larger Bench (Three Judge) and is, therefore, binding on us. No efforts were made and rightly to contend that the said decision needs reconsideration on the issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid down a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
