revst8399.07 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION ST. NO 8399 OF 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Sachin s/o Jagannath Rukhme & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Meera Biradar, advocate holding for Mr. U.R.Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Milind Patil, advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1 The Division Bench of this court while dealing with the issue as regards maintainability of the application seeking review of the order /award passed by the Lok Adalat as observed in paragraph nos. 23 and 24 of the judgment as below :- 23 As we have found that the Tribunal has reviewed the order/award passed by the Lok Adalat i.e. a different forum altogether and there is no specific power invested with the Tribunal to review the order / award passed by revst8399.07 2 the Lok Adalat. In a given case if the case falls U/s 151 of the C.P.C., the Tribunal may review its own judgment and order but in our view the Tribunal under guise of the power conferred on it by Rule 275(1) cannot review the order passed by the Lok Adalat which is independent forum created under a different statute. For these reasons we hold that the Tribunal has no power to review the order / award passed by the Lok Adalat. 24 As in the present case Review Application was filed before the Tribunal alleging that the award is obtained by playing fraud on the Lok Adalat and for that purpose on the Company. On facts it may be true that the award was obtained by fraud but the question is which forum can consider this aspect and review or modify the order. It is true that the order obtained by fraud if proved become nonest and no one get benefit of such order obtained by fraud. Therefore, the question is which is authority or forum available to the parties if it comes to the knowledge of one of the party that the award is obtained by fraud. By reading the provisions of 1987 Act and the powers that are conferred on the Lok Adalat, we hold that in such a situation if an application is made before the Tribunal or the Court which transferred the matter to the Lok Adalat, the Tribunal / Court instead of venturing upon to decide or considering the application revst8399.07 3 for review should follow the same procedure as prescribed U/s 20(1) and place the matter before Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat having sufficient power conferred on it by provisions of Section 21 to set right the things. Even in such situation, it will be open to the party to file a suit challenging the award of the Lok Adalat on the point of fraud, etc. as by now permanent Lok Adalats are functioning at every district and taluka places as per amendment Act of 2002, it will be also permissible for a party to move the permanent Lok Adalat for such purpose as to some extent the permanent Lok Adalat is the same fora. This is what our view and as such we hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and authority to review the award passed by the Lok Adalat. If any party alleges that the award is obtained by fraud, the aggrieved party has to make an application to the Court or the Tribunal with a request to transfer or place the matter before the Lok Adalat or if so advised, even they can file independent suit for that purpose which in our view will be out side the scope of Section 21 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question as above. We direct the Registrar to place the appeal and the writ petition before the learned Single Judge taking Appeal from Orders and writ petitions. Order accordingly. revst8399.07 4 2 On determination of the issue as regards maintainability by the Division Bench, the appeal from order was taken up by the Single Judge and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the appeal from order which came to be allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. 3 The learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter in accordance with determination of the issue by the Division Bench. No illegality or irregularity is committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Review petition is devoid of any merit hence stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb revst8399.07 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4908 OF 2007 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. N O. 8399 OF 2007. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders | CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 22 nd MARCH, 2011. 1 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 84 days occurred in presenting the review petition. 2 Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. For the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 84 days occurred in presenting the review petition stands condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb