Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court invalidated an order passed by the Lok Adalat accepting a compromise and directing the decree of the suit. The case involved a minor defendant represented by her grandfather, challenging the compromise decree issued by the Taluka Legal Authority.

Arguments:

Advocate S.S. Mamadapur, representing the petitioner, argued that the Lok Adalat, despite the presence of a Judicial Officer, lacked the authority to entertain applications under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC or any other judicial proceedings. Conversely, Advocate Mahadev S. Patil, for the respondents, contended that the compromise accepted by the Lok Adalat was valid, as applications under relevant CPC rules were duly filed.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice V Srishananda, presiding over the single judge bench, held that the Lok Adalat’s order accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit was invalid. The Court emphasized that the conciliators in the Lok Adalat do not possess judicial powers and cannot act as judges. Therefore, the Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to entertain applications requiring judicial orders. Consequently, the Court quashed the compromise decree and restored the suit to the Civil Judge for proper adjudication.