Dismissed

Chandra Shekara Dikshith v. S. Manjunathaiah

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/23484/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to recall a Lok Adalath compromise decree. Relying on Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, the court held that such decrees are final and binding, and a miscellaneous petition under Section 151 CPC filed with the District Judge was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous application to recall compromise decree dismissed as not maintainable.

Chandra Shekara Dikshith Vs S. Manjunathaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31449 WP No. 23484 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 23484 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRA SHEKARA DIKSHITH S/O LATE SOMAIAH

¶8

SINCE DEAD REP. BY LRS.

¶9

SRI. SOMASHEKAR DIXITH C., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARA DIXIT, RESIDING AT SHANKARMUTT ROAD, NEAR FORT, KOLAR CITY - 563101.

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. RAVISHANKAR DIXITH C., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARA DIXIT, RESIDING AT SRI. MARKANDESHWARA TEMPLE, VOKKALERI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563101.

¶12

SRI. C. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARA DIXIT, RESIDING AT KALIKAMBA KAMATESHWARA TEMPLE, ACHARI BEEDI, KOLAR CITY - 563101.

¶13

SMT. MANJULA C., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARA DIXIT,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:31449 WP No. 23484 of 2015

¶16

RESIDING AT NO.85, 5^TH CROSS, ITTAMADUGU MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560085.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. VINOD REDDY V., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

S. MANJUNATHAIAH, S/O LATE SOMAIAH, MAJOR,

¶21

PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE SOMAIAH, MAJOR

¶22

S. NANJUNDAIAH, S/O LATE SOMAIAH, MAJOR,

¶23

BALASUBRAMANIAM, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,

¶24

A) ANUSUYAMMA,

¶25

W/O LATE BALALSUBRAMANYAM, MAJOR,

¶26

B) ANANTHA,

¶27

S/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM, MAJOR,

¶28

C) UMA, D/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM, MAJOR,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31449 WP No. 23484 of 2015

¶30

D) SUMA, D/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM, MAJOR,

¶31

E) RAMA,

¶32

D/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM, MAJOR,

¶33

(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4(A) TO (E) ARE THE RESIDENTS OF SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, FORT, KOLAR - 563131.

¶34

5 LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE SOMAIAH, MAJOR, W/O SHANBOG RAMAPPA, R/O VOKKALERI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563131.

¶35

KRISHNAPPA,

¶36

S/O LATE RAMIAH, MAJOR, R/O MADERAHALLI VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563131.

¶37

DEVEGOWDA, S/O MARKANDE GOWDA, MAJOR, R/O MARKONDA PURA VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563131.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:31449 WP No. 23484 of 2015

¶40

N VENKATESHAPPA, S/O NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR,

¶41

R/O CHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563131.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED LRS OF DECEASED R1;

¶44

V/O DATED 21.01.2016, LRS OF DECEASED R2 ALREADY ON RECORD AND NO NECESSITY TO TAKE STEPS IN RESPECT OF R3 AND R5;

¶45

SRI. H.S. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A, C TO E); R4(B) AND R6 ARE SERVED;

¶46

V/O DATED 21.01.2016, NOTICE TO R7 AND R8 IS D/W)

¶47

THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.4.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTIONS 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN MISC 14 OF 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶48

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶50

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31449 WP No. 23484 of 2015

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed before the Lok Adalath by filing a miscellaneous petition under Section 151 of CPC before the District and Sessions Judge, Kolar with a prayer to recall the compromise decree. The trial Court has dismissed the same on the ground that miscellaneous petition is not maintainable and has directed the parties to approach the proper Court.

¶53

Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 states that every award made by a Lok Adalath shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

¶54

Thus, the petitioner could not have challenged the compromise decree passed before the Lok Adalath by filing a miscellaneous case before the District and Sessions Judge and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same. I do not see any error in the same.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:31449 WP No. 23484 of 2015

¶57

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶58

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not

¶59

survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶61

MCR

Chandra Shekara Dikshith v. S. Manjunathaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekara Dikshith v. S. Manjunathaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hanumakka Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri. H. Srinivasa Vs Smt. Gangamma

Sri. Joseph Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr a Mohammed Siddiqh Vs the State of Karnataka

T.D. Rajanna Siddappa Vs the State of Karnataka