9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court's decision to set aside the order of the Lok Adalat, without entering into a discussion as to the findings in such order, cannot be sustained. Such decision of the High Court runs contrary to established principles of law which seek to protect the sanctity and finality of orders based on a compromise or consent between parties. - appeal allowed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3486-3488 OF 2022 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2022 - M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. For the Petitioner : PRITHA SRIKUMAR, Advocate For the Respondent : MANJU JETLEY, Advocate JUDGMENT These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2015, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 20607, 20608 and 20609 of 2013, whereby the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions filed by Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 and has recalled order dated 7th July, 2012 by which the compromise had been recorded by the Lok Adalat, between the parties to Original Suit No. 876 of 2004, being a suit for partition and separate possession instituted by Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rural District, Bangalore. 2. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctively. c) Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) paid in favour of K. Shanthamma, Plaintiff No. 5 by way of two cheques for amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousands) and Rs. 27,50,000/- (rupees twenty seven lakhs and fifty thousands), respectively. d) Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) paid in favour of K. Geetha, Plaintiff No. 6, by way of two cheques for amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousands) and Rs. 27,50,000/- (rupees twenty seven lakhs and fifty thousands), respectively. e) Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs) paid in favour of Mallamma, Defendant No. 1. ii. That the Defendants would be entitled, jointly and severally, to enjoy absolute right, title and interest over the suit Schedule properties. iii. That Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 would be entitled to get the khata, mutation and record of rights transferred in their names, in respect of the suit Schedule properties. iv. That the suit Schedule properties would be retained by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, who shall hold the same as joint owners thereof, until a division is effected inter-se between the said Defendants. That the said property would not be available for pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayer to set aside the compromise could not be entertained. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Lok Adalat dated 13th July, 2012, Plaintiff No. 4 filed a Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 25989 of 2012, before the High Court of Karnataka, praying, inter-alia, that the order of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July, 2012 whereby compromise of the parties was recorded, be set aside. Plaintiff No. 4 submitted before the learned Single Judge of the High Court that although she had signed the compromise petition presented before the Trial Court and thereafter referred to referred to the Lok Adalat, the order sheet dated 07th July, 2012, which was drawn up in terms of the compromise petition was not signed by her. That the compromise petition was signed by Plaintiff No. 4 as a result of fraud practiced by the Defendants. 10. In light of the allegation of fraud on the part of the Defendants, the High Court, by an order dated 24th January, 2013 disposed of W.P. No. 25989 of 2012, by remanding the matter to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore, to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat to hold an enquiry and record a finding on the allegation of fraud levelled against the Defendants. The High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -20609 of 2013, before the High Court of Karnataka, praying, inter-alia, that the entire records pertaining to O.S. No. 876 of 2004 be called for and the orders of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July, 2012 and 27th April, 2013, be quashed. 14. By the impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2015, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru disposed of the Writ Petition filed by Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 by recalling the order of compromise passed by the Lok Adalat on 07th July, 2012. The High Court remanded the matter to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bengaluru, to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as if no compromise was entered into between the parties. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court whereby the order of the Lok Adalat recording compromise, was set aside, Defendant Nos. 2-5 have preferred the present appeals. 15. We have heard Mr. Anirudh Gotety, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. Manju Jetly, learned Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the material on record. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellants at the outset contended that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July, 2012, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That these objectors could not approbate and reprobate at the same time. That the High Court had erred in setting aside the compromise, without issuing any direction requiring Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 to return the amounts paid to them in terms of the compromise. 19. It was averred that the Lok Adalat, had, in its orders dated 07th July, 2012 and 27th April, 2013 recorded several findings of fact which ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. That Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 had not made any effort to explain why they did not state before the Lok Adalat on 07th July, 2012 that their signatures were obtained by fraud. That this aspect of the matter was rightly recognised by the Lok Adalat in rejecting the allegations of fraud raised against the Defendants. However, the High Court, made no reference to any of the findings of the Lok Adalat, in passing the impugned judgment. With the aforesaid contentions, it was prayed that the impugned judgment of the High Court may be set aside and the order of the Lok Adalat, dated 07th July, 2012, whereby the compromise between the parties was reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 did not state before the Lok Adalat on 07th July, 2012 that their signatures were obtained by fraud, could not form the basis for rejecting their allegations of fraud on the part of the Defendants. With the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted that the impugned order of the High Court, whereby the order of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July, 2012 was set aside, did not call for interference by this Court. 26. Having regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for Appellant that the impugned judgment of the High Court set aside the order of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July, 2012, in a very cursory and cryptic manner, without assigning any reasons for doing so, the impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2015 in its entirety has been extracted hereinunder: ORDER In these writ petitions, Petitioners have challenged the order sheet of the Lok Adalath, dated 7.7.2012. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the objections to the compromise petition raised by the Petitioners and orders passed by the Learned Judicial and non Judicial Members of the Lok Adalath, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore on 27.04.2013 passed in O.S. No. 876/2004, Petitioners are before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to an award of compromise passed by the Lok Adalat. When the Lok Adalat disposes cases in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit, after following principles of equity and natural justice, every such award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties. Given the element of finality attached to an award of the Lok Adalat, it also follows that no appeal would lie, Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against such award, vide P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job [(2005) 6 SCC 478]. 29. While we recognise that a Writ Petition would be maintainable against an award of the Lok Adalat, especially when such writ petition has been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award of compromise, a writ court cannot, in a casual manner, de hors any reasoning, set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. The award of a Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulent arrived at. 30. The Latin maxim cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex meaning reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crementalism. (j) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (k) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37]. (l) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of due process . (m) The requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making i.e. adequate and intelligible reasons must be given for judicial decisions. Though the aforesaid judgment was rendered in the context of a dismissal of a revision petition by a cryptic order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reliance could be placed on the said judgment on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that they had received a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) each, as mentioned in the compromise petition in lieu of relinquishing their rights, title and interest in the other suit Schedule properties. (g) That if, in fact, the signatures of Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 had been obtained by fraud, they ought to have returned the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) each, paid to them in accordance with the terms of the compromise. Having not done so, Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 had failed to establish that any fraud was practiced upon them, by the Defendants, with a view to obtain their signatures on the compromise petition. (h) On a perusal of the plaint, it is noted that there were 13 items of the suit Schedule property having different valuation and therefore, the Plaintiffs would have had their respective shares in the suit Schedule properties taken together. However, Plaintiff Nos. 4-6 accepted a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs each by relinquishing their right, title and interest in all the suit Schedule properties. Having received a monetary share in respect of the suit items, the Plaintiffs had decided to relinquish their right, title and interest in respect of all the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
