2025:HHC:24048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 6904 of 2024 Decided on : 23.07.2025 Sunita Bibi. …Petitioner Versus The State Legal Service Authority through its Member Secretary and another. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(1) That issuing writ of certiorari in the facts and circumstances enumerated herein above, the order dated 13.08.2022 passed by the National Lok Adalat is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion in execution petition No. 260-4 of 2021 may be quashed and set-side by declaring it illegal, void and not binding 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24048 upon the petitioner. (II) That the respondent No.2 be directed to pay arrears of maintenance to the petitioner as per order dated 11.9.2021 a/w interest @18% p.a.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 13.08.2022, passed by the Presiding Judge, National Lok Adalat, is perverse and a result of fraud and misrepresentation, which is evident from the fact that neither any statement of compromise was recorded on behalf of the petitioner on the day when the impugned order was passed nor any compromise was reached between the petitioner and the respondent. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of the Court to page 58 of the paper book and submitted that it is this statement of the petitioner, which has been taken note of by the Presiding Judge, National Lok Adalat, and therefore, it cannot be said that the order is bad. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order per se 3 2025:HHC:24048 is bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law and appears to be a result of misrepresentation. 5. It stands recorded by the learned Presiding Judge, National Lok Adalat, that the matter was compromised on 23.07.2022, vide which the applicant stated that she has received the total amount of Rs.28,000/-. Learned Presiding Judge further observed in the order that in view of the statement made by the applicant, the petition stands disposed of and the statement of the applicant shall form part of the order. 6. A perusal of order dated 23.07.2022, which is also on record, demonstrates that no compromise was entered into by the petitioner with the respondent on the said date. This order, which is at page 55 of the paper book reads as under:- “23.07.2022 Present: Sh. K.S. Chandel, Advocate for applicant. Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent. It is informed that there is a possibility of settlement. Be put up before NLA on 13.08.2022” 7. Thus it is apparent that all that was recorded by the Court on 23.07.2022 was that as there was a possibility of 4 2025:HHC:24048 settlement, the case be listed before the National Lok Adalat on 13.08.2022. It was for the National Lok Adalat on the said date to have had recorded the compromise, if any, arrived at between the parties, which is not there on record. This important issue has been ignored by the learned Presiding Judge, by passing the impugned order. Learned Presiding Judge has not appreciated that the compromise was to be entered into by the parties before the National Lok Adalat and no compromise was in fact entered into between the parties, before the National Lok Adalat. What to talk about the National Lok Adalt, zimni orders appended with the petition, which have not been controverted by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2, demonstrate that, no compromise was arrived at between the parties even before the learned Trial Court below. This is apparent from the fact that neither any compromise was arrived between the parties in terms of order dated 03.06.2022 nor in terms of order dated 23.07.2022. In fact, it appears that the learned Presiding Judge, National Lok Adalat, completely misread the statement of the petitioner dated 03.06.2022, in which she had stated that she had 5 2025:HHC:24048 received a total sum of Rs. 28,000/- till the said date. This statement had to be read harmoniously with the zimni order passed by the learned Kudicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhandutta on 03.06.2022, which is to the effect that the applicant stated that she had received Rs. 28,000/- from the respondent and the statement to the said effect stood recorded. 8. Incidentally, it is further recorded in this order that the case be listed on 23.07.2022 for making the remaining payment. This categorically demonstrates that whatever statement was recorded of the petitioner on 03.06.2022 was only reflective of the amount that was received by her till the said date and it was by no means reflective of any compromise or any complete satisfaction of what was due to her from the petitioner respondent. 9. Therefore, as the order passed by the learned National Lok Adalt is perverse on the face of it, this petition is allowed. Order dated 13.08.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for adjudication. List before the learned Trial Court on 11.08.2025. Parties through counsel are intimated to appear before the learned Court below 6 2025:HHC:24048 on the said date. In case, the petitioner fails to appear before the Court, the case be dismissed for non-prosecution and if the respondent fails to appear, he be proceed against ex-parte. It is clarified that the personal allegations which have been levelled in this writ petition against the respondent, have not been taken cognizance of by the Court in these proceedings. 10. The petition is allowed in above-said terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)