Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Rathi Vasudeva Rao vs P V R M Patnaik on 1 April, 2025
APHC010403512024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2141/2024
Between:
Rathi Vasudeva Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
P V R M Patnaik ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The judgment debtor filed the above revision against the order
dated 02.07.2024 in E.P.No.29 of 2022 in C.C.No.1041 of 2016 on the
file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
2. The respondent-decree holder filed C.C.No.1041 of 2016 (private
complaint) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
Page 2 of 7
petitioner-judgment debtor. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat vide
Lok Adalat Case No.186 of 2022 organized by the District Legal Services
Authority, Srikakulam. An award was passed under Section 21 of the
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The award reads thus:
“The complainant and the accused appeared before Lok Adalat
along with their counsels. After negotiations and conciliation, a
compromise has been arrived between both the parties with the
following terms:
i) that the accused agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees five lakhs only) to the complainant towards full and final
settlement and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) today and agreed to pay the balance amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and fifty thousand only) in nine
(9) installments @ Rs.50,000/- each on or before 25th of every
month till the discharge of total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the
complainant agreed to receive the same;
ii) that in case of default in payment of the above said amount in
any installment, the complainant is at liberty to execute the award
for recovery of the amount with interest @ 24% from the date of
award till the date of realization:
The terms of compromise are read over and explained to both
parties in Telugu and they admitted them to be true and correct.
Accordingly, recording the above terms of compromise, Award is
passed acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act under Section 147 f the
same Act.”
Page 3 of 7
3. The decree-holder filed E.P.No.39 of 2022 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam under Order XXI Rules 37 & 38 of CPC to
commit the judgment debtor to the civil prison. In the affidavit filed in
support of the petition, it was contended that the judgment debtor failed
to honour the award passed by the Lok Adalat and, as such, committed
default in payment of the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.
4. The judgment debtor filed a counter and contended that after the
Lok Adalat Award, the decree-holder neither demanded nor issued any
notice to the judgment debtor demanding the E.P. amount. The judgment
debtor never refused to pay the award amount. He is ready to pay the
amount after a lapse of some time.
5. The executing Court conducted an enquiry. The decree-holder
examined himself as PW.1 and marked the Award copy as Ex.P1. No
oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the judgment
debtor.
6. The executing Court recorded a finding that the judgment debtor
has movable and immovable properties and had the means to pay the
amount, however, intentionally avoided paying the amount. The
executing Court allowed the petition and ordered the judgment debtor to
be sent to civil prison for 3 months on the failure of the judgment debtor
to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.
7. Initially, while ordering notice, this Court granted an order on
04.12.2024 subject to payment of 50% of the decretal amount within two
weeks. However, the amount was not paid. Since the amount was not
paid, because of the condition, the stay stands rescinded.
Page 4 of 7
8. Sri Harsha, learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy,
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the award passed in
Lok Adalat concerning a criminal case and hence, the E.P. filed by the
decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 37, 38 of CPC is not maintainable.
He would also submit that the decree-holder ought to have availed
remedy under Section 421 of Cr.P.C.
9. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the award passed in Lok Adalat concerning the
Criminal Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, is executable by the Civil Court in case
of default committed by the judgment debtor?
10. The answer to the above question is no longer res integra. In
K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D.Shaji 1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court
considered a similar issue. The issue before the apex court was that
when a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, referred to by the Magistrate’s Court to the Lok
Adalat is settled by the parties, and an award is passed recording the
settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus
executable?
11. Section 21 of the Legal Services Act deals with the Award of Lok
Adalat. It is apt to extract section 21 of the Legal Services Act:
(1) Every award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a
civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and
where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok
Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20,the court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner
provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).
(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on
all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court
against the award.”
12. The Apex Court, while considering section 21 of the Legal Services
Act, observed as follows:
11. Section 21 of the Act, … contemplates a deeming provision,
hence, it is a legal fiction that the “award” of the Lok Adalat is a
decree of a civil court.
Eventually, the Apex Court held as follows:
26. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:
(1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act,
every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a
civil court and as such it is executable by that court.
(2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the
reference made by a civil court and a criminal court.
(3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an
award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in
respect of cases referred to by various courts (both civil and
criminal), tribunals, Family Court, Rent Control Court, Consumer
Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other forums
of similar nature.
(4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming
provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a
Page 6 of 7compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a
civil court.
13. The said principle was reiterated in Makwana Mangaldas
Tulsidas Vs. State of Gujarat2, wherein it was held thus:
“15. The effect of the above legal proposition is that an award
passed at the pre-litigation stage or pre-cognizance stage shall have
an effect of a civil decree. The National Legal Services Authority,
being the responsible authority in this regard, may evolve a scheme
for settlement of dispute relating to cheque bounce at pre-litigation
i.e. before filing of the private complaint. This measure of pre-
litigation ADR process can go a long way in settling the cases before
they come to court, thereby reducing docket burden.”
14. In Arun Kumar Vs. Anita Mishra3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
thus:
“13. Every award of the Lok Adalat is, as held in K.N. Govindan
Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji [(2012) 2 SCC 51], deemed to be decree
of a civil court and executable as a legally enforceable debt … ….”
15. The above principle was reiterated by the Division Bench of the
composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chaluvadi Murali Krishna
and another Vs. District Legal Service Authority, Prakasam District,
Ongole and others4.
16. Thus, given the authoritative pronouncements, the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner, that the execution petition filed by the
2
(2020) 4 SCC 695
3
(2020) 16 SCC 118
4
2013 (1) ALD 320 : AIR 2013 AP 41
Page 7 of 7
decree-holder is not maintainable, lacks merit. This Court holds that the
Execution Petition filed by the Decree holder, in pursuance of the award
of the Lok Adalat, referred to supra, is maintainable.
17. Coming to the other aspect, i.e. means of the judgment debtor, the
executing Court recorded a finding regarding the means of the judgment
debtor and his evading payment. This Court does not find any perversity
or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. There are no merits
in the Revision, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
[ad_1]
Source link