Mr. R. v. Mehaboob Sab Vs Thirumalamma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri. Kadirappa

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 123/2016 ON THE FILE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDESET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 01/04/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE IN LOKA ADALATH AS NULL AND VOID IN O.S.NO. 123/2016.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 01.04.2019 passed in OS No.123/2016, which was pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande, by the Lok Adalat.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

OS No.123/2016 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Gudibande, seeking

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 03.12.1998. In the said suit, contesting defendants had filed written statement opposing the suit claim. It appears that subsequently when the suit was at the stage of complying the requirements of Section 89 read with Order X of CPC, the parties had reported before the Trial Court that the matter was settled between the parties and therefore, on 01.04.2019, the Trial Court had referred the matter to the Lok Adalat and on the very same day, the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat and the suit was disposed off in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties to the suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Lok Adalat on 01.04.2019, defendant No.1 in OS No.123/2016 has approached this Court in this writ petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner's Advocate was not present before the Lok Adalat on the day, the suit was disposed off. He submits that the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.2 induced the petitioner to sign the compromise petition with a promise to pay the market value of the property

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

to the petitioner. After disposal of the suit, no such amount is paid.

¶42

Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations 2009, defines 'Award' passed by the Lok Adalat and the same reads as follows:-

¶43

"17. Award. – (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistancefrom Lok Adalat.

¶44

(2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. (see a specimen at Appendix-I) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation–20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature.

¶49

(3) In cases referred to Lok Adalat from a court, it shall be mentioned in the award that the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to refund of the court fees remitted.

¶50

(4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement.

¶51

(5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures:

¶52

(a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or onesided; and

¶53

(b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc.

¶58

(7) Lok Adalat shall not grant any bail or a divorce by mutual consent.

¶59

(8) The original award shall form part of the judicial records (in pre-litigation matter, the original award may be kept with the Legal Services Authority or committee, concerned) and a copy of the award shall be given to each of the parties duly certifying them to be true by the officer designated by the Member-Secretary or Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or, as the case may be, the Chairman of Taluk Legal Services Committees free of cost and the official seal of the Authority concerned or Committee shall be affixed on all awards."

¶60

It is not in dispute that petitioner herein is a signatory to the Compromise Petition that was filed before the Lok Adalat reporting settlement and the petitioner has also signed the

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

order sheet of the suit before the Lok Adalat on the day, the suit was disposed off based on the settlement reported between the parties. The settlement between the parties was not at the intervention of the Lok Adalat.

¶65

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, provides that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court fee paid in such cases will be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act provides that every award made by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

¶66

It is trite that award passed by the Lok Adalat is final and no appeal is maintainable against the same and such an award can be questioned only in a writ petition where allegations of fraud, coercion or undue influence is made. Such an allegation is not found in the present case and the only grievance made

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

by the petitioner is that plaintiffs and defendant No.2 who had assured to pay market value of the property had failed to pay the same. However, the terms of the compromise which was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, by the parties to the suit in OS No.123/2016 does not reflect any such understanding between the parties.

¶70

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 24 , has observed that in a case which is referred to the Lok Adalat by the Court, after the case is disposed off by the Lok Adalat recording the settlement between the parties, an award is required to be passed by the Court which has referred the matter to the Lok Adalat in terms of the settlement between the parties based on which case was disposed off by the Lok Adalat.

¶71

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no such award has been passed in the present case by the Court. If that is so, it is always open for the petitioner to raise his objection before the Court at the stage when the award is sought to be

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:44143 WP No. 13699 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

drawn based on the order passed, which is impugned in this petition. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶76

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶77

DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mr. R. v. Mehaboob Sab v Thirumalamma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri. Kadirappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. R. v. Mehaboob Sab v Thirumalamma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri. Kadirappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri T R Rakesh Vs Sri T K Ramanjinappa

Sri P Nagaraj Vs Smt. v Saroja

Smt Sowmya Latha Vs Sri v Sreeprasad

K C Ravishanka Vs M/S Indian Bank

Smt. Anusuyamma Vs Smt. Girija

Christopher Mascarenhas Vs Smt Mabel Kent