Allowed

Parvathy v. T.Partheeban

Madras HC11 Dec 2013CRP/4434/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the return order passed by the Small Causes Court. The court directed the executing court to number the execution petition arising from a Lok Adalat award, holding that the error lay in the lower court questioning the maintainability of an executable decree deeming itself as a civil court judgment under Section 21.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of return dated 23.10.2013 set aside; execution petition in E.P.C.F.R.No.3509 of 2013 to be numbered and disposed of within two months.

Parvathy Vs T.Partheeban — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE:11.12.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.PD.No.4434 of 2013

¶7

1.Parvathy 2.S.Muthu Gowri 3.M.Bala 4.Usha 5.S.Kavitha ... Petitioners

¶8

Versus 1.T. Partheeban 2.M.Sivachandran @ Madhu ..Respondents Prayer: Revision petition is filed to issue a direction to the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai to number the E.P.CFR No.3509 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2010 as per the award, dated 24.9.2011 and made in Lok Adalat Case No.4908 of 2011 and to dispose of the same according to law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N. Manokaran For Respondent : No appearance

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the

¶13

Constitution of India seeking a direction to the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai to number the execution petition in E.P.CFR No.3509 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2010 as per the award, dated 24.9.2011 and made in Lok Adalat Case No.4908 of 2011 and to dispose of the execution proceedings according to law, the civil revision is filed.

¶14

This revision petition is coming up today for

¶15

admission.

¶16

Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel

¶17

appearing for the revision petitioner.

¶18

This Court has perused the grounds of

¶19

revision along with the impugned order of return, dated 23.10.2013 and made in the execution proceedings in E.P.C.F.R.No.3509 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2010.

¶20

¶21

Having regard to the related facts and

¶22

circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by Mr.N. Manokaran, this Court finds that this petition can be disposed of at threshold.

¶23

It is manifested from the records that the revision petitioners have filed a Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2010 as against the respondents herein under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, seeking the order of eviction of the respondents

¶24

from the petition mentioned premises. The respondents herein have entered appearance and filed their counter statements.

¶25

At request made by the parties to the Rent

¶26

Control Proceedings, the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2010 was referred to Lok Adalat under Section 19/20(i) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) for settlement.

¶27

¶28

The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority,

¶29

Chennai on receipt of this petition has assigned Lok Adalat Case No.4908 of 2011.

¶30

Accordingly, the dispute between the revision petitioners and the respondents was settled amicably before the Lok Adalat on 24.9.2011.

¶31

The petitioners as well as the respondents

¶32

have entered into a memorandum of compromise, whereunder the first respondent herein has agreed to vacate the petition mentioned premises subject to the payment of Rs.50000/- by the petitioners on or before 1.10.2011 and

¶33

that the second respondent has also agreed to pay the rent of Rs.5000/- for a period of 11 months commencing from 1.10.2011 and thereafter agreed to pay the rent of Rs.5500/- for another 11 months. He has also agreed to clear the arrears of rent of Rs.27,300/-.

¶34

11.With the above said terms,the said memorandum

¶35

¶36

of compromise was recorded and a decree of eviction was also passed on 24.9.2011.

¶37

According to Mr.N. Manokaran, the conditions stipulated in the memorandum of compromise were complied with by the revision petitioners. However, he would submit that the respondents have not complied with the conditions stipulated therein.

¶38

On a perusal of the decree passed by the Lok Adalat, it is obvious to note here that the first respondent should have surrendered the tenancy portion to his sub-tenant, viz., the second respondent on a condition to continue the tenancy for a further period of 22 months from 1.10.2011. After 22 months, he should have surrendered the vacant possession to the decree holders/petitioners herein. But the respondents/judgment debtors have failed to surrender the vacant portion after 22 months. Therefore, the revision petitioners being decree holders had taken out the execution proceedings in E.P.C.F.R.No.3509 of 2013, which was unfortunately returned on 23.10.2013 by the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. Against which the present revision is filed before this Court by the revision petitioners.

¶39

¶40

It is significant to note here that an

¶41

award passed by the Lok Adalat is a decree equivalent to a decree passed by a civil court.

¶42

As contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal

¶43

Services Authority Act, 1987, every award passed by the Lok Adalat is to be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such, it is an executable decree.

¶44

Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under:-

¶45

“21. Award of Lok Adalat : (1) Every award of

¶46

the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court

¶47

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 case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).

¶48

Sub-clause (2) of Section 21 says that every

¶49

¶50

award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal lie to any Court against the award.

¶51

From the perusal of the order of return

¶52

passed by the court below, this Court finds that the intrinsic value under Section 21(1)&(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 may not be known to the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶53

Since the decree passed by the Lok Adalat

¶54

shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and if the decree is not satisfied by the Judgment Debtor, the decree holder is entitled to put the decree on execution as

¶55

against the judgment debtor. But the learned XII Judge has returned the execution petition questioning the maintainability of the decree for which he does not have the jurisdiction to question the decree as no appeal shall

¶56

lie against the decree passed by the Lok Adalat as contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

¶57

In K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon vs. C.D. Shaji

¶58

(2012) 2 SCC 51), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex

¶59

¶60

Court has held that Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act contemplates a deeming provision, hence, it is a legal fiction that the “award”of the Lok Adalat is a decree of a civil court. A legal fiction must be given its full effect. Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that court.

¶61

Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 21(1)&(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the guiding principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited decision, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is erroneous and it depicts the non application of mind and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶62

Accordingly, the revision petition is

¶63

allowed. The impugned order of return, dated 23.10.2013 is set aside and the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is directed to number the execution petition in E.P.C.F.R.No.3509 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2010 as

¶64

per the award, dated 24.9.2011 and made in Lok Adalat Case No.4908 of 2011 and to dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶65

¶66

With the above direction, the petition is

¶67

allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶68

rnb 11.12.2013 To XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. Index:Yes/No. Internet:Yes/No.

¶69

¶70

T. MATHIVANAN, J.

¶71

RNB

¶72

C.R.P.PD.No.4434 of 2013

¶73

DATE: 11.12.2013

¶74

¶75

CRP.(PD).No.4434 of 2013

¶76

T.MATHIVANAN,J.

¶77

The Civil Revision Petition in CRP.PD.No.4434 of 2013 has

¶78

been brought to this Court under the caption “For Being Mentioned”.

¶79

When the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing, it appears that it was disposed of on 11.12.2013. In this connection, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the original execution application which was produced at the time of filing of this Civil Revision Petition is now available with the office of the Registry, and therefore, a direction might be given to the office to return the original execution application to the Civil Revision Petitioners.

¶80

Considering the submission made by Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court finds it better to give a direction to the Registry to return the original execution application filed by the Civil Revision Petitioners along with Civil Revision Petition.

T.MATHIVANAN,J.

sms

Accordingly the Registry is directed to return the original

¶85

execution application to the Civil Revision Petitioners forthwith.

¶86

21.04.2015

¶87

CRP.(PD).No.4434 of 2013

Parvathy v. T.Partheeban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathy v. T.Partheeban

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

E.v.Muniyappa Vs S.Madhaiya

Abdul Khan Vs Balakrishnan

Meena Srinivasan, Vs George,S/O.Rajamanickam

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Dr. K. Priyalatha W/O Suresh

Mr.Chandralal Sharma Vs Mr.M.S.Kmar

S.Renuka Vs K.Gangarathinam