9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 2057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UCTIONS ANR. VERSUS KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY ORS. [ 2017 (9) TMI 1731 - SUPREME COURT] and STATE OF PUNJAB ORS. VERSUS SHRI GANPAT RAJ [ 2006 (9) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT] , that the third party would be covered by the meaning aggrieved person and as is held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Batchu Subba Lakshmi [ 2009 (12) TMI 1064 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , such a third party can challenge the Lok Adalat award provided the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is, prima facie, made out. The impugned Lok Adalat award is quashed and set aside - petition allowed. - R.V. Ghuge, J. For Appellant: Deshpande Ram B., Advocate For Respondents: Tandale Tushar M., Advocate JUDGMENT R.V. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The issue raised in this petitioner is as to whether, the third party can challenge the award of the Lok Adalat before the High Court on the ground that the litigating sides had excluded the third party from the litigation? 3. The Petitioners, Kusumbai wife of Ramesh Palve and her daughters, namely, Swati and Mangal, are aggrieved by the award of the Lok Adalat dated 08.07.2017 by whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative. (n) The suit property in the second suit was Survey No. 104/AA/1 in Vadjai area admeasuring 7 Acres 19 Gunthas and the suit property in the first suit was Survey No. 104/AA in Vadjai area admeasuring 3 Acres 35 Gunthas. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondents places reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, AIR 2017 SC 4428: (2018) 13 SCC 480, and contends that in such peculiar circumstances, the Petitioners must resort to a new suit and seek a declaration that the Lok Adalat award would not be binding upon them. 6. I find from Bhargavi Constructions (supra) that the Honourable Supreme Court was not dealing with the issue as to whether, a third party could also have the same remedy of challenging the Lok Adalat award in the High Court contending that such third party is aggrieved by the Lok Adalat Award. The Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that an aggrieved party can challenge the Lok Adalat award before the High Court. 7. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the matter of Batchu Subba Lakshmi and others vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on certain grounds. The grounds for challenge are recorded in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, which read as under:- What are grounds of challenge. 9. Insofar as legal position that the Lok Adalat cannot pass award unless and until there is a compromise and settlement under Section 20(3) and (5) of the Act between the parties, is well settled. In State of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj: (2006) 8 SCC 364: 2006 (7) SCJ 364: 2007 (1) ALT 28.3 (DNSC), respondent moved Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus to the State to pay interest at 18% per annum on the delayed payment of pension arrears and other retiral benefits. The case was sent to Lok Adalat, which passed award without any settlement or compromise between the pensioner and the State. The writ petition filed by the State was dismissed as misconceived. In the Supreme Court, it was submitted that the matter could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 20 of the Act. While allowing the appeal, the matter was remitted to High Court for de novo consideration. The purport of Section 20(3) and (5) of the Act is explained by Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have a right. This prima facie appears to be the fraud played upon these Petitioners as well as the court when the 2017 suit was settled in the Lok Adalat within 08 days of it's institution and when the Defendants had appeared suo moto without any notice. All had declared that there are no other family members. 11. These set of facts are not found in the judgments delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhargavi Construction (supra) and in State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 660 and in the matter decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Shalu vs. Vineet, 2014 (174) (2) PLR 602 : 2013 TLP H 4103. 12. It is true that a party aggrieved by the Lok Adalat award can approach the High Court if it discovers any fraud post the Lok Adalat award. It is equally true that the third party, which is not a litigant in a suit which has suffered a compromise decree, can also file a separate suit for seeking a declaration that such decree which affects the rights of the third party, would not be binding upon the said party as the said decree was delivered in the matter in which, such third party was never arrayed. It, therefore, appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved person and as is held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Batchu Subba Lakshmi (supra), such a third party can challenge the Lok Adalat award provided the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is, prima facie, made out. 17. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Lok Adalat award dated 08.07.2017 is quashed and set aside and RCS No. 730/2017 stands restored to the file of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ashti. 18. Naturally, the Petitioners will now have to move an application for addition of parties in the said suit, which the Trial Court would have to consider in the light of the conclusions arrived at by this Court in this judgment. 19. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners would appear before the concerned Court at Ashti on 15.04.2019 with an application for being impleaded as the Defendants. The said request is granted. All the litigating sides shall, therefore, appear before the said Court on 15.04.2019. Hence, notice need not be issued by the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit after the addition of parties, on it's own merits. 20. Need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
