Writ petition challenging a suit decree passed on compromise in a Lok Adalat without petitioners' appearance. Court dismissed the petition, holding petitioners were aware of the proceedings or negligent in not inquiring after several steps were taken in the suit record.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14713 Of 2022 (Through hybrid mode)
Nirakar Dash and another
…. Petitioners
Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Jayanta Kumar Dash
…. Opposite Party
Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Order No. 4.
ORDER 01.08.2022
1. Ms. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, the suit of her clients was decreed on compromise behind their back. Her clients did not appear before the Lok Adalat and hence, there should be interference to strike down order dated 17th April, 2011 decreeing in the suit in terms of alleged compromise.
2. She submits further, recently private opposite party commenced construction on her clients’ plot. Her clients knew status quo order in the suit was continuing. On instructing steps be taken in the suit, they found the suit has been decreed, hence, they are before the High Court. She relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy reported
in (2018) 13 SCC 480 to submit, the writ petition is maintainable
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
against private opposite party since, her clients’ grievance is against the Lok Adalat.
3. Petitioners have annexed order sheet in the suit. It appears therefrom, the plaint was presented on 24th August, 2009. On 7th January, 2010 written statement was filed and 21st January, 2010 fixed for settlement for issue. Issues were settled and the suit directed to be proceeded with for trial. Several adjournments were thereafter
granted and on 23rd August, 2010 plaintiff sought further adjournment, praying for time to get ready for hearing of the suit. Then, on 28th September, 2010, plaintiff sought amendment of the suit, which was allowed but on omission to put in cost for carrying out the amendment, order directing amendment was recalled by order no.31 dated 3rd March, 2021. The suit was directed to be put up for hearing with both sides directed to come ready.
4. Orders no.32 dated 7th March, 2011 to impugned order dated
17th April, 2011 are extracted from the order sheet and reproduced below.
“ Order No.32, dtd 07.03.2011
Both plaintiffs and defendant jointly filed a compromise petition being identified by both sides advocates. Copy of voter Id are filed. Put up the case record on 16.3.11 with office note.
Page 2 of 5
// 3 //
Sd/-
C.J.S. D. Anandapur
“ Order No.33, dtd 16.03.2011
Advocates from both sides are present. Seen office note. Put up on 24.3.11 for consideration of compromise petition when parties to remain present physically.
Sd/-
C.J.S. D. Anandapur
Advocates from both sides are present. Both plaintiffs and defendants are present and filed affidavit as per office note. Put up on 4.4.11 for perusal of compromise petition and order.
C.J.S. D. Anandapur “ Order No.35, dtd 04.04.2011
Advocates for defendants is present. Put up the case record in Mega Lok Adalat on 17.4.11 for consideration of the compromise petition. When parties to remain present asked both the counsels to instruct parties to come in Lok Adalat.
The record is put up before the Lok Adalat for
Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
consideration of the compromise petition filed on 7.3.2011. Both the parties are present and file separate Haziras.
Heard both the sides. Perused the compromise petition and the pleadings. Contents of the compromise petition is read over correct and they agree to the terms and condition of the compromise. As the parties have amicably settled their disputes, the petition to compromise is allowed. Hence the suit is decreed in terms of compromise. The compromise petition be made part of the decree parties to bear their own cost.”
5. The record in order sheet regarding filing of compromise petition, presence of both parties on several dates, leading to posting the suit to be decreed on compromise by the Lok Adalat, appears to have happened to the knowledge of petitioners. This inference is supported by petitioners’ not having taken any step whatsoever in the suit thereafter, till presenting this writ petition on 9th June, 2022.
Assuming petitioners had not joined in the compromise, they thereafter did not enquire about their suit. Nothing was done by petitioners. Court is convinced they were aware that the suit stood decreed on compromise.
6. The writ petition is without merit. It is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge
Sks
Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with a decree passed on compromise in a suit where petitioners claim they were not present.
Whether petitioners were aware of or negligent regarding the decreeing of their suit on compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam ReddyRelied on¶15
Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy reported in (2018) 13 SCC 480 · Who else cites this
Nirakar Dash and another
Jayanta Kumar Dash
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
