Tumkuru City Corporation Vs M/S Universal Transmission

M/S UNIVERSAL TRANSMISSION LINE PRODUCT, KUNGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 102 REPRESENTED BY TS PROPRIETOR SMT. M C ASHA, W/O T R VENKATESH BABU, AGED AOBUT 48 YEARS, R/O OF KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI ROAD, TUMAKURU.

¶16

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER /AWARD PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND CJM TUMKUR IN O.S.NO.168/2013 DATED.03.09.2016 BY WHICH THE ALLEGED COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 WAS RECORDED (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is by petitioner/defendant in a suit in O.S.No.168/2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,50,199/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 31.08.2012 till its realisation purportedly payable by the petitioner/defendant towards the work of maintenance of electricity lights which was awarded by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/ plaintiff.

¶26

The order under challenge is one purportedly passed in Lokadalat held on 03.09.2016. In which, taking note of a petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, the aforesaid suit has been decreed for the suit claim and for payment of interest as agreed. It appears pursuant to the said compromise that was accepted in the Lokadalat, the respondent/plaintiff initiated proceedings in Execution Petition No.366/2017 seeking assistance of the Court in recovering the said amount. It is thereafter the petitioner/defendant apparently learnt about the irregularity committed in having the said compromise petition

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

filed before the Court resulting in passing of the order impugned.

¶30

Smt. Sakshi M Krishna, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Subramanya R, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the record submits;

¶31

(a) That the vakalath in the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.168/2013 was executed by the Commissioner under his seal and signature. That even the written statement in the said suit has been filed by and on behalf of the Tumakuru City Corporation duly signed by the Commissioner as seen at Annexure-E.

¶32

(b) That the compromise petition found at AnnexureF bears some signature without any name or seal of the authority. That apparently the said compromise petition was filed before the Court on 18.08.2016 and the trial Court had apparently referred the matter for Lokadalat and on 03.09.2016 the compromise was purportedly accepted by the Lokadalat.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

(c) Referring to the said order sheet, learned counsel submits that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was irregular and illegal and contrary to the procedure prescribed. In that, relying upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.

¶37

Akkubai Vs. Venkatrao and others¹ , which is followed in the order dated 31.03.2022 by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.103766/2018, she submits that the procedure adopted by the Lokadalat in the instant case is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. That in the light of the irregularity and illegality, the compromise terms accepted in the Lokadalat is illegal and unsustainable and any further proceedings seeking enforcement of such an illegal order would cause prejudice to the petitioner/corporation requiring interference at the hands of this Court.

¶38

In response, Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff taking this Court through the statement of

¶39

1 ILR 2014 KAR 2051

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

objection and documents enclosed therewith more particularly

¶43

the office notes maintained by the petitioner/defendant produced at Annexure-R4, (page No.05) and paragraph No.13, submits that it is not as if the petitioner/defendant-Tumakuru City Corporation is not aware of the compromise that was entered into between the parties before the Lokadalat. The paragraph No.3 of the office notes of petitioner/defendantTumakuru City Corporation would indicate that it was resolved to honor the Lokadalat award passed as far back as in the year 2016. Being complacent of this matter, they cannot be allowed to reopen and reagitate the matter after five long years before this Court by filing the writ petition, which would not less than be an abuse of process of law. Thus he submits that the petitioner/defendant-Tumakuru City Corporation is estopped from assailing the validity or otherwise of the compromise that was entered into and reported and accepted in the Lokadalat. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶44

Heard and perused the records.

¶45

Suit is one for recovery of money purportedly based

¶46

on a cause of action in the nature of non-payment of service

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

charges arising out of a contract allotted to the respondent /plaintiff for maintenance of electrical street lights. Defendant

¶50

in the said suit is the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumkuru. Perusal of the written statement produced at Annexure-E would indicate that the same has been signed and verified by the Commissioner, under his seal. No such seal or the signature of the Commissioner as found in the written statement is forthcoming in the compromise petition, which is produced at Annexure-F.

¶51

The order sheet maintained in the above suit in

¶52

O.S.No.168/2013, at page No.18 reads as under:

¶53

''Joint memo filed.

¶54

Matter is referred to Lok-Adalat to be held on 20.08.2016.

¶55

If not compromised, call on 02.09.2016.''

¶56

''Case called before Lok Adalat

¶57

Plaintiff, defendant respective counsels' present and their and filed compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The terms and conditions of the petition is read over and explained to the parties. They have admitted execution and consented for the terms. Copies of Aadhar cards produced. Compared with the original and satisfied about the identity. Learned advocate have also identified the parties. They admitted that, defendant-Corporation decided to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff and ready to pay amount of Rs.21,50,199/to the plaintiff towards maintenance of Electricity lights for the period from 01.06.2012 to 31.08.2012 by making settlement. Having

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

satisfied that the compromise is lawful and voluntary, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Compromise Petition filed under order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is allowed.

¶63

Suit is decreed in terms of compromise.

¶64

Compromise petition becomes part of decree.

¶65

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶66

Refund admissible court fee.

¶67

Draw final decree accordingly.''

¶68

The order sheet also reveal the signature of one Venkatesha Babu (special power of attorney holder of the plaintiff) along with the signature of one Nandish K.S, advocate for the plaintiff. It also reveal signature of certain ''Vasanth Kumar, Junior Engineer'' along with the signature of advocate for the defendant. Thus there is neither the signature and seal of the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumukuru in the said order sheet.

¶69

Perusal of the order sheet also indicate that joint memo is purported to have been filed when the matter was before the trial Court. It is only thereafter the matter appeared to have been referred to Lokadalat. Even after the order passed by the Trial Court to refer the matter to Lokadalat, no separate order sheet is maintained by the Lokadalat.

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

This Court had taken note of these procedural irregularities going to the root of the validity of the Lokadalat proceedings in its order passed in the case of Smt. Akkubai Vs. Venkatrao and others (Supra) , which is followed and reiterated by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 31.03.2022, in W.P.No.103766/2018. In fact, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had even laid down certain guidelines to be followed in the Lokadalat to ensure the manner in which the compromise needs to be accepted and recorded. This Court had emphatically pointed out that when a matter is referred to Lokadalat, separate order sheet would have to be opened and maintained by the Lokadalat and order sheet of the Court cannot be used by the Lokadalat. It was also the duty of the Lokadalat to ensure that the parties are properly represented.

¶73

Since defendant in the said suit is the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Tumakuru representing on behalf of a statutory body, the necessary precaution ought to have been taken by the Lokadalat to ensure the same is represented by an authorized person. Perusal of compromise petition at Annexure-F would manifestly make it clear and it does not

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

clarify as to who has executed and under whose mandate. Suffice to state that the procedure adopted by the Lokadalat does not evince credibility. Besides, the same being contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as noted hereinabove.

¶77

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the compromise entered into before the Lokadalat cannot be sustained.

¶78

Though, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff sought to canvass his arguments with regard to the merits of the case, this Court refrains from making any observation in that regard.

¶79

Keeping open all questions and grounds to be urged in the suit pending before the trial Court, this petition is disposed of with the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i). Writ petition is allowed .

¶82

(ii). Order dated 03.09.2016 passed by Lokadalat, allowing the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and consequently decreeing the

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:37821 WP No. 7111 of 2021

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

suit in O.S.No.168/2013, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Tumakuru in terms of the said compromise is hereby quashed.

¶87

(iii) The suit in O.S.No.168/2013 is restored to the original file to be disposed of by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶88

(iv). Since the parties are being represented by their respective learned counsels' and they shall appear before the trial Court on 15.10.2025 without waiting for any notice from the trial Court in the matter. Since the matter is pending consideration from year 2016, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶89

(v) Needless to state, if the parties are advised, they may explore possibility of settlement strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to hereinabove.

¶90

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶91

RL

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Tumkuru City Corporation v. M/S Universal Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tumkuru City Corporation v. M/S Universal Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Sudesh Vs Syed Babajan

M/S Abhishek Developers Vs Smt Gowramma

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa Vs Sri. B. N. Muniraju

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy

Smt Meera Ramu Vs Sri G v Ramesh

Marian Peres Bhatt Vs Sadananda Poojary