Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court delivered this decision in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 59 of 2018 on 1 September 2022, clarifying when and how a trial court can recall a case that was previously sent to a Lok Adalat for settlement. The Court upheld the trial court’s power to recall such a reference when a pending application before it has not yet been decided — in this case, a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for adding a necessary party to the suit.
Background of the Case
A Title Suit (No. 482 of 2016) had been filed before the Sub Judge-I, Begusarai, by certain plaintiffs (respondents in the present petition). They sought a declaration of title over a piece of land, asserting that an oral partition had already taken place among the family branches back in 1970, giving each branch its own share.
The defendants (petitioners before the High Court) belonged to another branch of the same extended family. The dispute centered around whether all necessary family members had been made parties to the title suit.
One of the family members, respondent no. 10 in this case, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, requesting that he be made a party (impleaded) to the suit, since he claimed descent from Ram Gulam Singh, a branch allegedly left out from the suit.
While this application for impleadment was still pending, the trial court — at the request of some defendants — sent the case to the Lok Adalat on 15.11.2017 for possible settlement. Shortly after, the intervenor (respondent no. 10) filed a request asking the court to recall that order, arguing that the case should not have been sent to the Lok Adalat without first deciding whether he should be added as a party.
The trial court accepted that request on 25.11.2017 and recalled its earlier order, bringing the record back from the Lok Adalat.
Aggrieved by that, the defendants (petitioners before the High Court) approached the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that once a case is referred to the Lok Adalat, the trial court has no power to recall it.
Arguments by the Parties
- Petitioners’ Side:
- Once the trial court had referred the case to the Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it lost the jurisdiction to recall the record.
- The Act and the Rules do not grant any power to the referring court to withdraw or recall the reference once made.
- Therefore, the order dated 25.11.2017 recalling the file was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction and illegal.
- Respondent No. 10 (Intervenor):
- The trial court had earlier fixed 15.11.2017 to hear the petition for his impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.
- However, on the same date, at the request of some defendants, the record was erroneously sent to the Lok Adalat, without deciding his pending petition.
- Hence, the trial court rightly exercised its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to correct its mistake and recall the file from the Lok Adalat to first decide the impleadment application.
What the High Court Held
Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Sinha dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition and upheld the trial court’s decision.
The High Court observed:
- The trial court had indeed fixed 15.11.2017 to hear the impleadment petition filed by respondent no. 10.
- Instead of deciding that petition, the record was mistakenly sent to the Lok Adalat for settlement.
- The impleadment application went undecided, which would have affected the rights of the intervenor, who claimed to be a co-sharer in the joint family property.
- Therefore, recalling the file was necessary to correct the procedural mistake.
The High Court concluded that the trial court’s recall was neither illegal nor beyond its jurisdiction. Under Section 151 CPC (the court’s inherent powers), a court can recall or correct an order to prevent injustice or to rectify an inadvertent error.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- The decision clarifies that civil courts retain limited inherent powers even after referring a case to a Lok Adalat. If the referral was made by mistake — particularly when a pending procedural application (like impleadment) exists — the court can recall the file.
- It ensures that the principle of natural justice is not violated merely due to an administrative referral. All necessary parties must first be added before a case goes for compromise or settlement.
- It also strengthens the procedural fairness in Lok Adalat referrals, ensuring that such referrals are made only when the case is ripe for settlement and all parties are properly represented.
- For litigants, it reinforces that Lok Adalat is not a substitute for the court’s adjudication but a consensual forum; thus, the referring court can correct an erroneous referral.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Issue 1: Whether a civil court can recall a case once referred to the Lok Adalat?
- ✅ Decision: Yes, if the referral was made by mistake or in violation of procedural fairness. The court has inherent power under Section 151 CPC to recall such reference.
- Issue 2: Whether recalling the case from the Lok Adalat amounted to a jurisdictional error?
- ❌ Decision: No. The High Court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and committed no illegality.
- Issue 3: Whether an impleadment petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC should be decided before referring the case to Lok Adalat?
- ✅ Decision: Yes. All necessary parties must be included before the case is sent for compromise or settlement.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
The High Court primarily relied on principles derived from:
- Order I Rule 10(2) CPC – power to add necessary parties.
- Section 151 CPC – inherent powers of the civil court.
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – concerning referral to Lok Adalat.
Case Title
Petitioners vs. Respondent No. 10 & Others
(Names withheld for publication consistency)
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 59 of 2018
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 73
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate; Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
- For Respondent No. 10: Mr. J.S. Arora, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gaurav Pratap, Advocate
Link to Judgment
NDQjNTkjMjAxOCMxI04=-LcOqLWiOWbs=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
