CWP No.7130 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7130 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2011 **** Surinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. GK Turka, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. AS Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The application moved by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Patiala for the refund of the alleged excess payment made on account of fast running of the meter, has been rejected by the said authority vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 after observing that “on the face of it, this application is barred by limitation…..”. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the cause of action to seek refund of the above-stated amount arose in his favour only when the Civil Suit filed by him was decreed CWP No.7130 of 2009.doc - 2 – in part on 06.09.2006 by the Civil Court, followed by acceptance of his cross-objections by the First Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 04.02.2008. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the Permanent Lok Adalat while passing the impugned order. (2). Suffice it to mention that in a case where the claim is apparently barred by limitation and it is not expedient for the Permanent Lok Adalat to resolve the controversy under Section 22-C(8) of the Act, it ought not have entertained the application and instead could relegate the party to the other remedy as may be available in law. No such recourse has been followed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in the present case. (3). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P3) is set aside and the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Patiala is directed to re-consider the petitioner’s application in the light of the observations made hereinabove. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 22.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge