Lok Adalat Can Entertain Complaint Irrespective Of Pecuniary Value: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal filed against the award of the Adoor Taluk Legal Service Committee.

The Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon held, “...on a deeper analysis of the provisions of Section 19(5) of the Act, I am of the opinion that insofar as Section 19(5) has not spoken about any “pecuniary jurisdiction” and has only spoken about “territorial jurisdiction” the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered the very same issue. There, the petitioner contented that the litigation was pending before a particular district, on account of which, if at all a complaint could be lodged and considered, that can be only by the District Legal Services Authority. Considering this issue, the High Court, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, has categorically found that the statute does not specify any “pecuniary jurisdiction”. On that basis, it was found that the Taluk Legal Services Authority could also entertain a complaint.”

Advocate T.M. Raman Kartha represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Shameena Salahudheen represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale with the fourth respondent, and the respondent paid an advance amount in excess of Rs 90 lakh. However, the sale did not take place, and the respondent sought the return of the advance amount. The petitioners were also ready to refund the advance amount, in terms of the agreement for sale. Since the petitioners did not refund the advance amount, the respondent instituted an application/complaint before the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Authority.

By the award, the Committee recorded the undertaking given by the petitioners that they were ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.98,35,000. Post-dated cheques issued by the petitioners were also handed over to the respondent. However, the respondent sought to execute the award by filing an execution petition. The cheques issued by the petitioners were also not honoured. The petitioners entered an appearance and sought to object to the execution petition. It was in such circumstances that the appellant instituted the writ petition, seeking to challenge the award.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the award was on account of a fraud played on the petitioners. It was further contended that the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee did not have any jurisdiction to issue an award with reference to the mandate under Section 19(5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

On the contrary, it was the case of the respondent that unless and until the alleged fraud was proven, an award could not be interfered with by the High Court.

Reasoning

Dealing with the allegations relating to fraud, the Bench noted that the averments in the petition were only to the effect that the petitioners were directed over the phone to appear before Adalat on the “very next day” and, when they appeared as directed, they were forced into the compromise. According to the Bench, this was not sufficient to prove any fraud against the appellant. “This is especially so, when the petitioners themselves admit that there was no coercion for their appearance and since, as already noticed, they were accompanied by a lawyer. Hence, the allegation as regards fraud is only to be turned down”, it added.

Coming to the issue of jurisdiction, the Bench held that the petitioners were not entitled to succeed since Section 19(5) has not spoken about any “pecuniary jurisdiction” and has only spoken about “territorial jurisdiction”. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Balla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana AT Sathibabu v. The State Of A.P. (W.P.(C) No.6190 of 2019), wherein it has been held that the statute does not specify any “pecuniary jurisdiction”. Reference was also made to the judgment in Thomas @ Thomas v. Florance (2009), wherein the same principles have been laid down.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Prasanth P Kumar v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:26747)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates T.M. Raman Kartha, Manju R. Kartha, M.S. Soujath, Syama Mohan, Revathy M.A., Greeshma T.G., Sneha Brigit Prince

Respondent: Advocates Shameena Salahudheen, K.Shaj, Arun Chand, Bharat Vijay P., Kevin James

Click here to read/download Order