INDRESH PATEL Vs. NARAD CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the award of National Lok Adalat, passed in Civil Suit No.38-A/2016 on 08.07.2016.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were minor, who were arrayed as defendants in the suit No.38-A/2016 and represented by the guardian Sarita Patel, who is respondent No.2 in this petition. Award of Lok Adalat was passed on the basis of the compromise between the respondent No.1 as plaintiff and respondent No.2 as defendant on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the petitioners, who were minor defendants. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has overlooked the interest and welfare of the minors, which is provided under Section 27 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Presiding Officer of National Lok Adalat has also overlooked the interest of the petitioners by passing the impugned award, therefore, the award passed is illegal and arbitrary. Relying on the judgment of Prevy Council in the matter of Mohori Bibee and Anr. Vs. Dharmodas Ghose, reported in (1903) ILR 30 Cal. 539, it is submitted that the minor is incompetent to contract, therefore, any money paid to him is not recoverable and any agreement on his behalf is not enforceable. Hence, the award of Lok Adalat is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, the award passed by the Lok Adalat can not be challenged in any Court in appeal as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 22.02.2019 in W.P. (227) 914 of 2018, it is submitted that setting-aside of any award of Lok Adalat would amount to frustrate the purpose and intention of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, therefore, this petition can not be entertained and allowed.