AP High Court: Judgment debtors who signed a Lok Adalat award cannot reopen its pecuniary jurisdiction at the execution stage

Summary

Judgment debtors opposed execution of a 2010 Permanent Lok Adalat award of Rs 50 lakh, arguing that the Lok Adalat had no power to pass an award above Rs 10 lakh, so it was a nullity that could be challenged in execution. The trial court refused to dismiss the execution petition at that stage. The High Court upheld that order.

The court's decision

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition with no costs. It noted that the petitioners had participated in the Lok Adalat and been parties to the award, and had already attacked the same award on the same ground in a writ petition that a Division Bench dismissed on 12 November 2024, which had become final. It also held that, since the attachment was made absolute on 8 December 2020 and not challenged, the petitioners could not ask for it to be lifted. The petitioners remain free to raise their objections in the inquiry in the main execution petition.

Provisions referred to

Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure

Section 22C(1), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (as amended)

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Related judgments

AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

AP High Court: Plaint cannot be thrown out as time-barred without trial where an insolvency petition may amount to an acknowledgment of debt

The question: Can mention of a creditor and the amount due in the debtor's insolvency petition amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

A lender sued to recover Rs 4 lakh on a 2021 promissory note. The trial court at Jammalamadugu rejected the plaint as time-barred, because the debtor's later insolvency petition listing the lender as a creditor was, it said, only an admission and not an acknowledgment that extends limitation. The High Court set that order aside and sent the case back.

Disposed of CRP/2609/2026

Telangana High Court ·18 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

Telangana HC allows amendment of a suit property's boundary description, saying it adds no new cause of action

The question: Can the boundary description of the suit property be amended under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?

A plaintiff in a pending title suit before the Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda asked to correct the southern boundary of the suit property from 'Road leads to Adavidevulapally to Chityala' to 'Flood Flow Canal and Road'. The trial court refused. The High Court set that order aside in a civil revision petition and allowed the amendment.

Allowed CRP/2422/2026

AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Writ Petition

AP High Court sets aside a preventive detention order because the detaining authority never considered the detenu's bail orders

The question: Must bail orders in the cases relied on be placed before the detaining authority?

The Collector of Sri Sathya Sai district detained a man under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 (the 'Goondas Act') on the basis of nine criminal cases, and the State confirmed the order in May 2026. In a habeas corpus writ, a Division Bench of the High Court found that bail orders in two of those cases had not been placed before the detaining authority, and quashed the detention.

Allowed WP/13273/2026