Suresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.6888 of 2014 (2) dt.17-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6888 of 2014 ====================================================== Suresh Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 17-02-2016 It appears that by mistake, the State of Bihar has been made party-respondent in this application, therefore, the State of Bihar i.e. respondent No.1 is deleted from the cause title of this writ application.

The petitioner has challenged the award of the Lok Adalat dated 22.10.2009/18.01.2010 whereby the Lok Adalat has disposed of the Pre-litigation Case No.147 of 2009 on the basis of compromise between the parties.

The petitioner, who is defendant in the pre-litigation case, appeared and filed Misc. Case No.294 of 2013 alleging that he has not signed the compromise application and no notice was ever sent to him and, therefore, after taking evidence, the compromise award be set aside.

By the order dated 28.11.2013/07.02.2014, the Lok Adalat rejected the said application holding that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to

Patna High Court CWJC No.6888 of 2014 (2) dt.17-02-2016 decide the dispute raised by the petitioner.

So far the point raised by the petitioner that he has not signed the compromise application and his signature was forged in the compromise application is concerned, that cannot be decided in a proceeding either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So far the order of rejection passed by the Lok Adalat in Miscellaneous Case is concerned, the Lok Adalat has rightly held that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide this question. All the questions raised by the petitioner is fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Kanti Devi v. State of Bihar, 2012(2) PLJR 184.

Therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate the law laid down in the said decision following the Supreme Court decisions. However, this question can only be decided by the Civil Court, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Civil Court by initiating appropriate proceeding.

So far this writ application is concerned, it has got no merit and thus, it is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T