Allowed

Ramdeo Bhagat and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Jul 2013CWJC/5151/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Writ Jurisdiction case, the Patna High Court allowed a challenge to a Permanent Lok Adalat award alleging fraud. Relying on precedents that finality does not bar fraud claims, the court set aside the award and permitted the parties to choose another forum.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 24.3.2007 in P.L.C. case No. 58/2007 was set aside, and the writ application was allowed. Parties are free to choose a forum to resolve their dispute afresh.

Ramdeo Bhagat and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5151 of 2008

¶3

====================================================== Ramdeo Bhagat & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 M/S Bipin Bihari Singh Mr. Pancham Lal Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

¶4

ORAL ORDER

¶5

7 16-07-2013 Order dated 24.03.2007 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali at Hajipur in P. L. Case No. 58/2007 as contained in Annexure-2 is under challenge by the petitioners seeking quashing of the award. According to them fraud had been played in filing a so called compromise petition by including certain properties in the compromise petition, which was not part and parcel of the so called agreement entered into between the parties. Filing of pre - litigative suit before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Vaishali by private respondent nos. 3 and 4 is not the issue. The issue is whether the complainants played fraude with

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.5151 of 2008 (7) dt.16-07-2013

¶7

2 / 3

¶8

the so called compromise between the parties. May be on good advise the two parties agreed to approach a permanent Lok Adalat instead of going to a Civil Court but the assertion made in the writ application is that properties not part of compromise was also included in the so called compromise petition behind the back of the petitioners by fraud played by private respondents no. 3 and 4. This came to the knowledge of the petitioners when the final order was passed and then they realized that a fraud was played with them.

¶9

The objection of the respondents that once an award attains finality under the Legal Services authority Act, 1987 the same can not be challenged before any appropriate forum much less in Civil Court. It is a misplaced kind of stand to take keeping in view the decision rendered in CWJC No. 14426/2009, which was the case of Meena Choudhary and others Vrs. Dr. Dilip Choudhary and others decided by a Division Bench on 6^th November, 2009. The Division Bench taking into consideration the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vrs. Jalour Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court cases 660 as well as the case of Smt. Anita Vrs. R. Rambilas reported in AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh -32 has held that if a fraud has been played in obtaining a decree

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.5151 of 2008 (7) dt.16-07-2013

¶11

3 / 3

¶12

from Permanent Lok Adalat it can surely be challenged before a High Court may be even Civil Court.

¶13

Since the parties are still at loggerhead and settlement of dispute before Lok Adalat is required to be voluntary, which it is not, it is better to allow them to move a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶14

The award would be required to be interfered with in the above background. The impugned order contained in Annexure-2 dated 24.3.2007 passed in P.L.C. case No. 58/2007, is setaside and writ application is allowed. Parties are free to choose the forum, if they want to resolve their dispute afresh.

¶15

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶16

Sudha/-

Ramdeo Bhagat and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdeo Bhagat and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Sharaf Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bhikar Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Branch Manager,State Bank of I Vs the State of Bihar andORS

Chairman,L.I.C.of India and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Man.Comm.of Madrasa Quasimul O Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kanhaiya Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.