CWP No.15536 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 31.8.2010 Palla Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Judge, Permanent Lok Adalat Sirsa and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the impugned award dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirsa. Briefly stated the facts to the filing of this petition are that respondent no.2 filed a suit for declaration claiming 1/8th share in the land measuring 65 kanals 10 marlas being the wife of the petitioner. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sirsa referred the matter to the permanent Lok Adalat. During the proceedings before the permanent Lok Adalat, the parties allegedly entered into compromise. Not only the statements of the parties were recorded, even written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff therein was allegedly filed by the petitioner herein. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, the permanent Lok Adalat passed the impugned award dated 18.12.2009. After passing of the award, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.137-C of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa challenging the CWP No.15536 of 2010 2 award of the permanent Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud. Respondent no.2 made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the claim on the ground that the same is barred by law. It is this application which was decided by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division) vide order dated 2.8.2010 holding that the remedy of the petitioner herein is by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. The ground for challenging the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is the fraud during the judicial proceedings in the Court. Under such circumstances, the remedy of writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioner. Only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the same Court by way of application for holding an enquiry into the allegations of fraud. This principle is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581. In the aforesaid case, by practising fraud upon the Insurance Company, the claimant obtained an award of compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. On coming to know of fraud, the Insurance Company applied for recalling of the award. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that it had no power to review its own award. The High Court also confirmed the order of the Tribunal. The Company approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "15.It is unrealistic to expect the appellant company to resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the fraud because appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the claimants. If the Insurance Company comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister CWP No.15536 of 2010 3 object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the company to file a statutory appeal against the award. Not only because of bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then. 16.Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No Court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. 17.The allegation made by the appellant Insurance Company, that claimants were not involved in the accident which they described in the claim petitions, cannot be brushed aside without further probe into the matter, for, the said allegation has not been specifically denied by the claimants when they were called upon to file objections to the applications for recalling of the awards. Claimants then confined their resistance to the plea that the application for recall is not legally maintainable. Therefore, we strongly feel that the claim must be allowed to be resisted, on the ground of fraud now alleged by the Insurance Company. If we fail to afford to the Insurance Company an opportunity to substantiate their contentions it might certainly lead to serious miscarriage of justice". In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to the petitioner to approach the same Court where fraud is alleged to have been played, in accordance with law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.8.2010 MFK CWP No.15536 of 2010 4