LexBHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR. versus KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 380
BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR.
v.
KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY & ORS .
. (Civil Appeal No. 11345of2017)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedur~, 1908:
Order VII r. JI (d) - Suit against award <d Lok Adalat -
C Application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was
not maintainable being barred by y_irtue of rigour contained in Or.
VII 1: JI (d) - Trial court relying on the law laid down in *State of
Punjab v. Jal our Singh case rejected the plaint holding that suit against
award of Lok Ada/at was barred and reme({y there-against was writ
D petition u!Art. 2261227 of the Constitution - High Court set aside
·the order of'trial court holding that since the suit was founded on
the allegations of misrepresentation and fraud, was capable of being
tried by civil court - On appeal, held: The law laid down by Supreme
·. Court is binding on all the, courts by virtue of mandate of Art. 141
of the Constitution - The expression 'Law' occurring in clause (d)
E of r. I 1 of Or. VII CPC. is not co11ftned to legislative enactments and
would include 'Judicial decisions' - The deci.'iion since laid down
that award of Lok Ada/at can be challenged only by filing writ
petition, this law is binding - Therefore, in the present case, the
only remedy available to the plaintiffs was writ petition he.fore High
F Court - Plaint 1rus right(v rejected by the trial court - Constitution
of India -Art. 141 - Precedent.
G
H
Words & Phrases:
"Lcrw" - Meaning of in the context of Or. VII r. 11 (d) CPC.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The law laid down by this Court in * Ja/our Singh 's
case is binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of mandate
of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no .uncertain
terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat
can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 andlor
380
BHARGAVI CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR. v. KOTHAKAPU
381
MUTHYAM REDDY & ORS. [387-E-F]
Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court and A
that too on very limited grounds. [Para 27][387-E-F]
2. It is not cor~ect to say that the expression "law"
occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC does not include
the "judicial decisions" ancl clause (d) applies only to bar which
is contained in "the Act" enacted by the Legislature. "Law" B
includes the "judicial precedents". Law is derived from judicial
precedents, legislation .or from custom. When derived from
judicial precedents, it is called common law, equity, or admiralty,
probate or ecclesiastical law according to the nature of the Courts
by which it was originally enforced". Law includes not only
legislative enactments but also judicial precedents. An C
authoritative judgment of the Courts including higher judiciary
is also law. [Paras 30, 31 and 32][388-C-G]
Virender Kumar Dixit v. State of UP. 2014 (9) ADJ
1506; Shahid s. Sarkar & Ors. v. U5ha Ramrao Bhojane
2017 SCC OnLine Born 3440; Mira Sinha & Ors. v.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar.4377
- approved.
""·
Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition); Jowett's.
Dictionary of English Law (Third Edition) Volume-2
- referred to.
D
E
3. *Jalour Singll's cal·e is binding on this Court. No efforts
were made that the said decision needed reconsideration on- the
issue in question. That apart, when this Court has laid down a
particular remedy to follow for challenging the award of LokAdalat
then the same is required to be followed by the litigant in letter F
and spirit as provided therein for adjudication of his grievance in
the first instance. The reason being that it is a law of the land
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. [Para 37][390-G-
H; 391-A]
M Nagaraj & Ors. v. UO.l. & Ors. 2006 (8) SCC 212:
G
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336 - relied on.
4. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this
Court, the only remedy available to the aggrieved
person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(20 l 7] 9 S.C.R.
A under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the
High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed
by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to
whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for
quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds were
8
sufficient for its quashing. [Para 28](387-G-H]
cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.