The Punjab High Court allowed the revision petition. It set aside a Lok Adalat order directing the petitioner to return a title deed because the petitioner was not a party to the suit, absent from the proceedings, and had no role in the compromise.
Impugned Lok Adalat order dated 15.09.2007 to return the title deed is set aside.
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.
C. R. No. 3786 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 3786 of 2008
Date of Decision : January 15, 2010
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 1.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short – PSIDC) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing Award/Order dated 15.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Lok Adalat No.1, Malerkotla in suit filed by respondent no.1 against proforma respondents no.2 to 6 herein. Dispute between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6 was settled in Lok Adalat. Vide impugned order Annexure P-1, direction was issued to PSIDC (petitioner herein) to return the original title deed of the plaintiff, which stood deposited with PSIDC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
C. R. No. 3786 of 2008
2
was not party to the suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 6, nor petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat and therefore, no direction could be issued to the petitioner to return the title deed of the plaintiff-respondent no.1.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1, however, contended that the title deeds were deposited by respondent no.1 with State of Punjab (respondent no.2) and it was respondent no.2, which gave the title deed to PSIDC (petitioner) and therefore, direction was rightly issued by Lok Adalat to PSIDC to return title deed to the plaintiff because matter between plaintiff and defendants i.e. between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6 was compromised in Lok Adalat.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 also contended that title deed was given to State of Punjab against loan raised by respondent no.1 from State of Punjab and the said loan stands repaid.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
The title deed is admittedly in custody of the petitioner. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not party to the suit instituted by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 6. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not party to the compromise effected between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6, nor petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat.
In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by Lok Adalat, qua direction to PSIDC to return the title deed to respondent no.1, cannot be sustained because the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner-PSIDC, nor any compromise was effected with the petitioner, nor petitioner was party to the suit in question, nor the petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat, nor petitioner was party to any settlement either before Lok Adalat or otherwise.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 15.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Lok Adalat
C. R. No. 3786 of 2008
3
No.1, Malerkotla is set aside to the extent of direction given to the petitioner herein to return the title deed of the plaintiff-respondent no.1. However, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of rival claims of the parties.
January 15, 2010
monika
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can set aside an order under Article 227 when the entity directed to deposit property was not a party to the suit before the Lok Adalat?
Is a direction to return a title deed sustainable when the entity holding it was not present before or party to the compromise proceeding?
Whether an order passed without hearing a person in custody of disputed property violates principles of natural justice?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited
Respondent no.1
State of Punjab
Respondents no.2 to 6
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
