ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6374 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 6374 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 6374 OF 2007 1. M/s. Subhash Narasappa Mangrule, Partnership Firm, 2. Narasappa Baburao Mangrule (Partner), Age 70 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Kalika Nagar, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur. 3. Parameshwar Narasappa mangrule (Partner) Age 40 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Kalika Nagar, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur. ..Petitioners Vs. Sidramappa Jagdevappa Unnad. Age 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist, R/o. Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur. ..Respondent. Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi for the Petitioners. Mr.Ashok B.Tajane for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 14TH JANUARY, 2009. : 14TH JANUARY, 2009. : 14TH JANUARY, 2009. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: Heard finally by consent. 2. The Petitioners have challenged two interlocutory orders below Exhibit Nos. 15 and 24 in Regular Darkhast No.17 of 2006 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akkalkot, District Solapur. ( 2 ) 3. The facts of the case are as under:- . On 22/06/2001, the Respondent filed a Criminal Complaint being S.C.C.No. 923 of 2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot V/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. . It has been alleged that the Petitioners, engaged in the garment business allegedly borrowed money to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Respondent/ Complainant. 3. On 15/05/2001, Petitioner No.2 being a partner issued a cheque No.923237 dated 28/04/2001 of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of Respondent. 4. On presentation of the said cheque, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and returned to the Respondent on 10/05/2001. 5. On 25/06/2001, the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority issued a letter to the member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority District Court Building, Solapur stating that such award is a decree as contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act"). ( 3 ) 6. On 14/05/2001, the Respondent issued a legal Notice to the Petitioners calling upon them to pay the amount of the cheque. 7. However, the Petitioners have not made any compliance. Hence Respondent had filed Summary Criminal Case No.923 of 2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the N.I.Act"). It is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I.Act. 8. On 20/07/2003, the said Criminal case came to be transferred to Lok Adalat. It was compromised before the Lok Adalat and an award is passed accordingly for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only). 9. The Petitioners and Respondent have filed the pursis before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot and an order was passed accordingly. 10. The Respondent filed a Darkhast proceeding No.17 of 2006 in the Court of C.J.J.D. for execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat in Criminal Case No.923 of 2007 as there was no compliance of the compromised order/ award. The Learned C.J.J.D., issued a notice ( 4 ) under Order 27 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. 11. On 15/01/2007, the Petitioners have filed their say raising objections that the Darkhast is not maintainable as the award has been passed in Criminal Case. 12. On 30/06/2007, the Petitioners filed an application raising point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court; and that the Respondent wants the amount without paying the Court fee of Rs.50,000/-. 13. On 18/07/2007, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division has disposed off the objection as raised by the Petitioners and directed to proceed with the execution by the Judgment and order. Hence this Petition. 14. Admittedly, by the consent of the parties, as parties have voluntarily agreed and settled the matter, the Lok Adalat on 20th July, 2003 has passed the award which has force of decree under the act. The complaint was disposed of accordingly. The Petitioners did not comply with the same award therefore, the execution application filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners (Judgment Debtors). ( 5 ) 15. Section 20 of the Act empowers to take cognizance by the Lok Adalat, when both the parties jointly make an application indicating their intention to compromise, which covers the proceeding under Section 138 of the N. I. Act & even as per Circular No.MSLSA/Adalat/ 12/2005/848 dated 25/06/2001, issued by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. The compromise in question as recorded is within the framework of law and the record. Section 21 further mandates that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decreed of Civil Court and the same shall be final and binding on all the parties. Such order is not even appealable. Other party/ Judgment Debtor/ accused if refused to make the payment pursuance to the award, the decree holder / Respondent/ Complainant has no choice but to file such execution application. 16. The parties were fully aware that under the Act, the District Legal Services Authority may explore the possibility of holding pre-litigation Lok Adalats in respect of the cheque bouncing cases. The compromise in such cases would be treated as Award having force of a decree. All objections as raised with regard to the execution in view of above statutory provisions itself is rightly rejected. Having settled the matter in Lok ( 6 ) Adalat and now after more than 3 years raising such plea is untenable. Having obtained the award from Lok Adalat, the party is not permitted to resile from the same. It attains finality to the dispute between the parties finally and binds all. Therefore, the order in this regard need no interference. 17. Once the parties entered into compromise before the Lok Adalat, & at that time no question of any pecuniary jurisdiction raised and or required to be considered by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, once the award is passed, it is executable under C.P.C. There is no dispute as recorded that as per the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 (Amended Act- 1998) the peculiar jurisdiction of Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division is restricted to one lack rupees. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to dismiss the execution application on that count. It will frustrate the whole object of settlement and the award under the Act. The Petitioners got the benefit of settlement and yet not paid the amount till this date. 18. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( 7 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)