Allowed

Kamanna S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi v. Bhimappa S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022CRP/100008/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition, quashing the impugned order that dismissed an application for rejection of the plaint. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the suit is barred by law as it indirectly challenges the finality of a Lok Adalat award, thereby directing rejection of the plaint.

What did the court decide?

The application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC permitting rejection of the plaint is allowed; the impugned order is quashed.

Kamanna S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi Vs Bhimappa S/O. Siddappa… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100008 OF 2022 (-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KAMANNA S/O. SIDDAPPA TAMADADDI AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, NOW PRESENTLY R/O. HARUGERI-591220 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BHIMAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA TAMADADDI AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGERI-591220 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶13

Digitallysigned by JMAMATHA JMAMATHA Location:DharwadDate:2022.06.1811:46:08+0530

¶14

SMT.ANJANA W/O. KALLAPPA BANSHI AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BEKKERI-591317 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶15

SMT.SHILPA W/O SURESH PUJARI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AINAPUR-591303 TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶16

SMT.ANITA W/O ANIL BELAGALI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HIDKAL-591122

¶17

TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶18

¶19

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶20

SMT.SONAWWA W/O SIDDAPPA TAMADADDI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HARUGERI-591220

¶21

TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶22

SMT.YALLAWWA W/O SHIVAJI BARAGALI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NIDAGUNDI-591317 TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶23

SMT.SHALA W/O SATISH ITAGANNAVAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MUDHOL-587313 TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE

¶24

SMT.SUJATA W/O ANAND HANDIGUND AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AINAPUR-591303

¶25

TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶26

SMT.INDRAWWA W/O SHIDDAPPA TAMADADDI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HARUGERI-591220

¶27

TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5 NOTICE TO R7 & R9 DISPENSED WITH, R6 AND R8 ARE SERVED)

¶30

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.535/2017 ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶34

ORDER

¶35

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶36

The petitioner/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.535/2017 is before this court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.4 whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶38

respondents have filed O.S.No.535/2017 for the following relief:

¶39

“A. A decree for reopening of partition obtained by playing fraud on the court in O.S.No.891/2013 dated 07.09.2013 may be reopened and entire properties may be allotted to the share of plaintiffs. Alternatively 1/6^th share each to the plaintiffs be awarded by reopening partition obtained by practicing fraud in O.S.No.891/2013 dated 07.09.2013 with separate possession thereof;

¶40

B. Any other reliefs deem fit by this Hon’ble Court be granted to the plaintiffs;

¶41

C. Costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs;

¶42

¶43

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶44

D. A decree may be drawn accordingly.”

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.4 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by law and not maintainable under the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The trial court rejected the said application while holding that the plaintiffs have sought for reopening the partition and not for setting aside the award of Lok Adalath. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharvagi Construction and Another V. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others (AIR 2017 SC 4428) and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court noticed its earlier decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jalour Singh and Others (AIR 2008 SC 1209) and held that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is

¶46

¶47

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶48

binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

¶50

Nos.1 to 5 seeks to support the impugned order.

¶51

Having gone through the decision referred in Bharvagi Construction (supra) this court finds that Their Lordships extracted paragraph 12 of the judgment in

¶52

State of Punjab (supra) as follows:

¶53

“12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the

¶54

¶55

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶56

High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.”

¶57

Consequently, Their Lordships have held that, it is clear pronouncement of the law by the Apex Court that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person who admits that he is signatory to the terms of settlement, based on which the award is made by the Lok Adalath, is to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalath.

¶58

It was also argued before the Hon’ble Apex

¶59

Court that since the words employed in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII is “barred by any law” and expression “law” will not include the “judicial decisions”. Such contention was considered and negatived by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was held that it cannot be said that the term “barred by any law” occurring in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code, ought to be read to mean

¶60

¶61

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶62

only the law codified in a legislative enactment and not the law laid down by the courts in judicial precedents.

¶63

In the opinion of the trial court that the plaintiffs have not sought for setting aside the award of the Lok Adalath is also not correct. It is clear from the prayer made in the plaint that the plaintiffs have sought for a decree for re-opening of partition obtained by playing fraud on the court in O.S.No.891/2013. This is nothing but a challenge raised to the award of the Lok Adalath by virtue of which O.S.No.891/2013 was disposed of. The respondents are seeking the same relief indirectly, what was not permitted directly.

¶64

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibab on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.535/2017 requires to be quashed and set aside. What follows is that I.A.No.4 filed at the hands of the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC is required to be allowed while

¶65

¶66

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

¶67

rejecting the plaint. Therefore, this court proceeds to pass

¶68

the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶71

ii) The impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag in O.S.No.535/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶72

iii) I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.535/2017 is accordingly allowed and the plaint stands rejected.

¶73

iv) Liberty is reserved to the respondents/plaintiffs to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the award dated 07.09.2013 passed by the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.891/2013.

¶74

v) Ordered accordingly.

¶75

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶76

MBS/-

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

Kamanna S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi v. Bhimappa S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamanna S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi v. Bhimappa S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Bhadrinarayan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shree Dattaguru Electricals Vs the Executive Engineer

Shri. Syed Yakub Hussaini Vs Shri. Badari Narayana S/O Shankar Rao Padaki

Izaz Ahmad Magi Vs Taslim Taj W/O Izaz Ahamad Magi

M/S.T.S.Pumps and Valves Private Vs the Electricity Ombudsman Bangalore

Smt. Shilpa W/O Irappa Hosamani Vs Smt. Shankramma W/O Chanabasappa Hosamani