Friday, November 8, 2024
HomeNewsJammu and Kashmir High Court Rules Lok Adalats Cannot Dismiss Cases for...

Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules Lok Adalats Cannot Dismiss Cases for Non-Prosecution

Jammu and Kashmir High Court Reaffirms Role of Lok Adalats in Dispute Resolution

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has clarified that Lok Adalats lack the authority to dismiss cases for non-prosecution. In its recent ruling on August 9, the Court addressed the limitations of Lok Adalats in handling cases referred to them under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Justice Sanjay Dhar explained that Lok Adalats are empowered to either pass an award if the parties reach a settlement or, if no settlement is achieved, refer the case back to the original court for further legal proceedings. The Court emphasized that Lok Adalats do not possess the power to dismiss cases simply because a party fails to appear or prosecute the matter.

The Court’s decision came in response to a plea challenging a Lok Adalat’s order that dismissed a cheque bounce complaint due to the complainant’s absence. The petition questioned whether a Lok Adalat could dismiss a case for default when a party does not appear.

Reviewing the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the High Court noted that Lok Adalats are designed to facilitate dispute resolution through settlements and compromises. Under Section 20(6) of the Act, if no settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must advise the parties to pursue their claims in court, where the case will proceed from the stage it was at when referred.

The High Court concluded that Lok Adalats are not authorized to dismiss cases for non-prosecution and ruled that the Lok Adalat’s dismissal of the petitioner’s case was invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the Lok Adalat’s order and directed that the case be returned to the concerned court for further action according to law.

This ruling aligns with a recent similar decision by the Rajasthan High Court, reinforcing the procedural limits of Lok Adalats.

Advocate Mir Umar represented the petitioner, while Advocate Tawheed Ahmad appeared for the private respondent.

(With inputs from agency)

Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Today's Headlines