9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ud is sustainable. The petitioner though is not party to the suit which was decreed in terms of the compromise before the Lok Adalat, however, the petitioner, as the aggrieved person, either can file a separate suit for seeking declaration that such decree would not be binding upon her share or the petitioner may file writ petition on the ground of fraud for setting aside the award passed in the Lok Adalat. The impugned award of the Lok Adalat set aside - petition allowed. - V. K. JADHAV, J. Mr. K. N. Shermale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amol S. Sawant, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. U.S. Mote, advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 ORDER PER COURT :- 1. By consent of the respective parties, heard finally at admission stage. 2. This writ petition is directed against the compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 2012 for partition and separate possession in respect of ancestral property against respondent No.1 deceased Revaji and respondent No.6 herein, by excluding the petitioner and other members of the joint family, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aggrieved person is to file writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) by judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 in writ petition No. 10639 of 2018 by referring the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and further the observations made by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Batchu Subba Lokshmi and others vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu and others, reported in 2010 (1) ALT 483 held that the writ petition is maintainable and further quashed and set aside the award passed in the Lok Adalat on the ground of fraud. 7. Mr. Amol Sawant, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties by order dated 30.6.2013 passed by the Head of Lok Nyayalay Panel i.e. then Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise pursis Exh.22. 14. In the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others (supra) in para 12, the Supreme court has made the following observations:- 12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile a suit for declaration. Under this provision, any person can even institute a suit for declaration that the decree passed by Civil Court in an earlier suit is not binding on him. When a civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on the party before it, we do not see any objection for a third party to institute a suit in a civil Court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him/her subject to the law of limitation. We however hasten to add that there may be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who may have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such third party. In such cases within a reasonable period such third party may maintain a writ petition. But in such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from raising their right in respect of the ancestral property. 19. The petitioner though is not party to the suit which was decreed in terms of the compromise before the Lok Adalat, however, the petitioner, as the aggrieved person, either can file a separate suit for seeking declaration that such decree would not be binding upon her share or the petitioner may file writ petition on the ground of fraud for setting aside the award passed in the Lok Adalat. 20. In view of above, writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned award of the Lok Adalat dated 30.6.2013 and in consequence thereto, the Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 2013 needs to be restored to the file of learned Civil Judge, Junior division, Parner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER I. Writ petition is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clauses C , D and E . II. The parties shall appear before the trial court in restored R.C.S. No. 374 of 2013 on 06.04.2021. III. The trial court shall proceed to decide the suit after addition of the parties on its own merits. IV. Needless to say that the parties to the suit are prevented to create the third party interest or any encumbrance on the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
