Sukanta Kumar Sahoo @ Behera Vs Arun Kumar Behera

3. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 4, who are the Plaintiffs, filed aforesaid suit praying for decree of partition, wherein present Petitioners are Defendants 1 & 2. In course of proceedings of the suit, at the stage of Plaintiffs evidence, it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs that during pendency of the present suit Defendants 1 & 2 filed another suit subsequently in C.S. No.253 of 2023 without arraying the Plaintiffs as parties with a prayer for partition of the selfsame property and managed to obtain a decree on compromise before the Lok Adalat, and subsequently mutated the Record of Rights in their names. As such, Plaintiffs sought for amendment of the plaint incorporating such facts in the suit with further addition in the prayer of the plaint to pass a decree declaring the judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.253 of 2023 as illegal and void on the ground of suppression of material facts and fraud. Such prayer of the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint has been allowed vide order dated 20.02.2025, and the same is subject matter of challenge in present C.M.P. by Defendants 1 & 2.

¶24

4. The entire contention of the Petitioners is that, a prayer challenging the decree passed by Lok Adalat can only be preferred before the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶25

C.M.P. No.686 of 2025

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Oct-2025 18:23:17

¶29

India and cannot be by a suit before the civil court. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharvagi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and

¶30

others, (2018) 13 SCC 480, has been relied on by the Petitioners.

¶31

5. In the afore-cited case, the Plaintiffs of the suit, which was placed before the Lok Adalat on the basis of written compromise was allowed, have challenged it by filing a civil suit subsequently alleging fraud and to set aside such order passed by the Lok Adalat. It was prayed by the Plaintiffs in the subsequent suit that to declare the award passed by the Lok Adalat in the earlier civil suit is by playing fraud/ mis-representation and thus be declared as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the facts and the earlier judgment passed in State of Punjab and another

¶32

vs. Jalour Singh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 660 have settled the law as

¶33

follows:-

¶34

“ 24. In our considered view, the aforesaid law laid down by this Court is binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has laid down that challenge to the award of Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶35

C.M.P. No.686 of 2025 Page 3 of 7

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Oct-2025 18:23:17

¶38

India in the High Court and that too on very limited grounds. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person (respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22-8-2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing.”

¶39

6. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties

¶40

(Plaintiffs) submits that, the afore-cited case as relied on by the Defendants are distinguishable on the facts of the present case mainly on the ground that in the instant case, the Plaintiffs were not parties to the subsequent suit in C.S. No.253 of 2023 which was filed without impleading present Plaintiffs as parties and not only by suppressing of the fact of pendency of the present suit but also by collusion with other Defendants, the parties could obtain a decree on compromise before the Lok Adalat. When the present Plaintiffs were not the parties to the subsequent suit where the Defendants have got a compromise decree in their favour, it is right on the part of the Plaintiffs to bring the same within the fold of challenge in the present suit itself lest the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs cannot be completed.

¶41

C.M.P. No.686 of 2025

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Oct-2025 18:23:17

¶45

7. In Bharvagi Constructions (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶46

have held that, the only remedy available to the aggrieved person was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat and it was for the writ court to decide the merits of the case by quashing the award based on the grounds taken by the parties.

¶47

8. In the instant case, it is a fact that present plaintiffs are not parties to the compromise decree and the same was obtained by the Defendants by suppressing the pendency of present suit. When it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, they added such relief to the prayer in the pending suit to set aside the decree of compromise as null and void.

¶48

9. It is seen that the initial prayer for partition of the suit property, as prayed by the Plaintiffs, cannot be completely adjudicated without setting aside the compromise decree passed in C.S. No.253 of 2023 wherein self-same properties covered in the present suit have been

¶49

partitioned among the parties excluding the right of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the prayer for partition of the Plaintiffs cannot be

¶50

C.M.P. No.686 of 2025

¶51

Page 5 of 7

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Oct-2025 18:23:17

¶54

maintained on the face of the compromise decree passed in C.S. No.253 of 2023 unless and until the same is set aside. Such a prayer

¶55

sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is appearing inseparable from the main prayer and it is not that both the prayers can be separated to maintain the suit for partition alone. What is submitted by the Plaintiffs that since they were not parties to the compromise decree, it is not necessary for them to approach under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the decree is not found convincible. It is for the reason that whatever may be the difference in facts in the present case from the facts of the case in Bharvagi Constructions (supra), but it remains admitted that present Plaintiffs are the aggrieved persons in respect of the decree passed in C.S. No.253 of 2023 by the Lok Adalat. Hon’ble Supreme Court have

¶56

used the phrase “ aggrieved person ”. It is not essential that an aggrieved person must always be a party to the suit in order to challenge the decree of the Lok Adalat. Therefore, when it has come to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and such a decree on compromise has been passed by the Lok Adalat deliberately suppressing the fact of pendency of the present suit and without impleading the Plaintiffs as parties, they should approach the High Court under Article 226 and/or 227 of the

¶57

C.M.P. No.686 of 2025

¶58

Page 6 of 7

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Oct-2025 18:23:17

¶61

Constitution of India as per the law laid down in Bharvagi Constructions (supra).

¶62

10. Therefore, the permission granted by learned trial court in allowing the amendment to challenge the decree passed by the Lok Adalat would certainly amount beyond it’s jurisdiction and as such, such a prayer cannot be maintained before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar. Therefore, the amendment to such effect to add prayer (d) in the plaint as per the amendment petition dated 29.11.2024 has to be rejected. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 to such effect is set aside and said prayer (d) cannot be added in the plaint.

¶63

11. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the C.M.P. is disposed of. As prayed by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, it is open for the Plaintiffs to challenge the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat in appropriate forum.

¶64

B.K. Barik/Secretary

¶65

C.M.P. No.686 of 2025

¶66

Page 7 of 7

Sukanta Kumar Sahoo @ Behera v. Arun Kumar Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukanta Kumar Sahoo @ Behera v. Arun Kumar Behera

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

Dr. Nanda Kishore Agrawal Vs L.a.O.,Sambalpur

Lalit Krishna Das Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Cummins(India) Ltd. Vs M/S.P.K.Ores(P) Ltd.

Sudarsan Sahoo Vs a Bhagaban Patro

Janaki Jena Vs Dinabandhu @ Biswambara Jena

Suryamani Barik Vs Sarojini Barik