NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19796 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?
========================================================== PUSHPABEN MANJIBHAI PATEL & 3 other(s) Versus MAHESH SRICHAND KOTWANI & 4 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 3MR YATIN OZA, SR.ADV. with MR RAJESH K SAVJANI(2225) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3.1,3.2,4 MR PERCY KAVINA, SR.ADV. with MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 18/08/2023 CAV JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the consent decree dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge (JD) Ahmedabad, Rural in Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No. 464 of 2002, by which, the trial Court, in Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined pursuance to compromise purshis given by parties, vide Exh.16, disposed of the Civil Suit in Lok Adalat, vide judgement and decree dated 17.08.2002.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the present petition are as under:
a. The dispute between the parties relates to four parcel of lands bearings plots No.91,92,93,94 situated at Sterling City Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Bopal, Ahmedabad. b. Petitioners being NRI, submitted application form to the society for purchase of subject plots and agreement to this effect was executed by the society on 16.12.1994 and consideration thereof was being paid thereafter and share certificates along with the possession receipt have been issued by this society and since then, they are lawful owners of the suit plots.
c. The petitioners put a fencing upon the suit plots as well as sign board.
d. The respondents No.1 to 4, are also claiming their right over the suit plots and according to their case, they had purchased the suit plots by way of agreement allegedly executed by the authorised person of the society and also have in their possession the share certificates and possession receipts. e. The respondents no.1 to 4 removed the fencing over the suit plots and entered into the suit plots illegally by advantage of petitioners absence and put up their signboards on the plots.
f. The respondent Nos.1 to 4,filed a collusive suit, against his relative and/or known-person, respondent No.5, Deepak Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined Nanakram Sadhwani, for getting declaration and permanent injunction with respect to suit plots.
g. The suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.464 of 2002 on the file of Civil Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur and the same was filed on 07.08.2002. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are lawful owners of the suit plots and since long they are in possession and occupation. The defendant respondent No.5 herein, expressed his desire to purchase the said plots but somehow the plaintiffs respondents No.1 to 4 did not want to sell the plot properties and same was conveyed to the defendant No.5 and in that circumstances, his ego was hurt and threatened the plaintiffs that he will encroach upon the suit plots and sell it to the third party. Thus, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction inter alia praying that they may be declared lawful owner of the suit plots and defendant respondent No.5 having no right, title and interest in the property and he be restrained not to enter in the suit plots and disturb their possession by issuing permanent injunction. The Civil Court issued summons and notice, making it returnable on 14.08.2002. The plaintiffs had also sought a prayer of local inspection of the suit plots. The Civil Court appointed the Court Commissioner to make a local inspection and accordingly, on 08.08.2002, in the presence of respondents, local inspection was made and report thereof, along with the site map showing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plots, was submitted Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined by the Court Commissioner. On the returnable date, time was sought by the defendant respondent No.5 herein to file written statement. Before he could file a written statement, vide Exh.16, dated 16.08.2002, compromise purshis was being submitted before the Court stating inter alia therein that the plaintiffs are lawful owners of the plots and they can do whatever they want with respect to suit plots and defendant will disturb the possession of the suit plots and also agreed to grant the declaration as well as permanent injunction as prayed for. The Civil Court recorded the purshis and put the matter in Lok Adalat to be held on the next day i.e. 17.08.2002. The suit was disposed in the Lok Adalat, as per the terms and conditions of the compromise and decree to that effect was drawn accordingly. h. The petitioners came to India in the year 2006. They came to know that their signboards and fencing put on the plots were removed by the respondents. Upon enquiry, they found that by practicing fraud upon them and suppressing material facts before the trial Court, a collusive decree is being obtained to frustrate their lawful rights over the suit plots. They filed a civil suit for possession, joining the respondents and developer of the society, which came to be registered as Special Civil Suit No.333 of 2006. They had also preferred a regular appeal, challenging the collusive decree obtained in Lok Adalat along with delay condone application, as there was a delay in preferring the appeal. The appellate Court after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 15.10.2015, Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined passed in delay condonation application No.52 of 2008, rejected the said application observing that the petitioners were not party to the compromise decree and being a third party, before filing the appeal, the leave of the District Court is necessary and, accordingly, the application was rejected. i. The petitioners approached this Court by preferring this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the compromise decree obtained in Lok Adalat mainly on the ground that the decree is nullity, as it is obtained by practicing fraud on Court as well as the petitioners.
3. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by Mr. Rajesh Savjani, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent.
4. Mr. Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel, has challenged the decree passed in the Lok Adalat mainly on two grounds viz - (i) the respondents have obtained the said decree by playing fraud on the Court as well as the petitioners and have suppressed the material facts by which the Civil Court was misled in passing the decree, and
(ii) the mandatory provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 having not been followed, as the Civil Suit was not referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement, as provided under Sub-Section (5) of Section 19 of the Act, 1987.
5. Mr. Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that, the Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined respondents have played the fraud not only with the petitioners but with the Court by filing collusive suit proceedings. The respondent no. 5 - original defendant of the suit, though served, neither filed any written statement nor any affidavit, opposing the suit and within 10 days of the filing of the suit, by way of compromise, he had conceded the pleading of the suit and agreed to declare the respondents as owners of the suit plots, which conduct shows that the defendant no. 5 being a relative and known person to the respondents No.1 to 4 - original plaintiffs of the suit, in connivance with each other, played a fraud upon the Court as well as with the petitioners and obtained the decree so as to defeat the right, title and interest of the petitioners with respect to suit plots, as they are lawful owner of the plots and paid full consideration amount to the society. He further pointed out that, the defendant no. 5 is stranger to the subject plots and is not connected in any manner with the property. In the suit, the society was not made a party which also suggest the dishonest intention of the respondents. It is in this context, he submitted that the petitioners being the sole owners and having right, title and interest over the suit plots, have filed Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No. 333 of 2006, against the respondents and the society claiming various reliefs, including the mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover the possession of the suit plots. Thus, therefore, Mr. Oza, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, the fraudulent decree would bind the Civil Court, who is seized with the Special Civil Suit. That, by virtue of the fraudulent decree, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have been declared as owners of the suit plots and said decree binds the Court in the subsequent proceedings and Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined therefore, on the ground of fraud and collusion, the decree obtained in Lok Adalat is nullity and same is required to be set aside.
6. Mr. Oza, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, the procedure is envisaged under the provisions of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 for referring any case to Lok Adalat for amicable settlement. Referring to Sub-section (5) of Section 19 and 20 of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, he submitted that, the Civil Court, after receiving the compromise purshis Exh.16, did not have passed any order as provided under Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act, to make Reference of the case for settlement in the Lok Adalat and therefore, the decree passed in Lok Adalat is vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and on this ground also, the decree is not sustainable in law.
7. In the aforesaid contentions and relying various decisions of the Apex Court, on the issue of fraud, the learned Senior counsel Mr. Oza submitted that, the respondents herein, taking advantage of petitioners' absence, removed the fencing on the subject plots and illegally entered into the subject plots and put their sign boards and thereafter, on 07.08.2002, filed collusive suit, by suppressing material facts, without any cause of action, suit was filed with respect to same parcel of plots and within short span of time, bogus compromise purshis behind the back of the petitioners was filed and accordingly, the decree in Lok Adalat is being obtained by playing fraud on the Court as well as the petitioners, so as to frustrate their right, title and interest over the suit plots. The petitioners came to know about the aforesaid facts and persuaded their appropriate remedy and considering the settled law about the challenge to the Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined validity the decree passed in Lok Adalat, the petitioners have no any alternate but to file present petition challenging the decree by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the aforesaid contentions, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Oza submitted that, the alleged decree dated 17.08.2002 passed in Lok Adalat suffers from patent illegality, which has caused grave injustice to the petitioners and therefore, this is a fit case to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.
9. Mr.Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for and on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has submitted that the petition is barred by principles of delay and latches, as the same is filed in the year 2015, challenging the compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat dated 17.08.2002. It is in this context, he has submitted that, they had challenged the impugned decree by way of filing the appeal along with the delay condone application (CMA No.52 of 2008) and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court vide its order dated 15.10.2015 and against which, no further proceedings was being initiated by the petitioners. Thus, the dismissal of appeal and delay condone application attains the finality. Thus, therefore, after 13 years from the date of the decree, the petitioners are before this Court and that too, after failure in getting proper relief from the appellate Court. Thus, he urged that this petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned decree may not be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.
10. The next was the contention that the impugned compromise decree passed in respect of plots owned by respondents No.1 to 4 herein Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined and not in respect of plots claimed by the petitioners and therefore, the consent decree does not cause any prejudice to the plots held by the petitioners and the issue whether the plots claimed by parties are same or not is a disputed question of fact and same can be tried by the Civil Court in the Special Civil Suit No.333 of 2006. Thus, the compromise decree, will bind only parties to the suit and not a person who is not a party to the proceedings and right of petitioners could be examined independently in the substantial suit which is presently pending with the Civil Court. However, without prejudice to the rights and contentions, he submitted that respondents No.1 to 4 are not claiming any right in respect of suit plots against the petitioners herein on the basis of impugned compromise decree, as their rights qua suit plots flow from various documents executed by the society. In these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the compromise decree under challenge would in no manner come in the way of deciding the substantive right of possession claimed by the petitioner in the suit and therefore, when legally the decree would not bind to the parties, there is no need to quash and set aside the same.
11. It is the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for and on behalf of the respondents herein that, the petitioners allege an act of fraud on the part of respondents herein in obtaining the impugned decree. In this context he submitted that the expressions "fraud" or "collusion" are not defined in the Act, but section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 defined the term fraud, which says that fraud means and includes the specified act mentioned in the definition, committed by a party to a contract or with his connivance, with Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined intent to deceive another party thereto or to induce the party, who enter into the contract. That in the facts of the present case, the petitioners were not party to the compromise decree, nor before filing the suit, the parties had entered into any contract with respect to suit plots. Thus, the allegations of fraud similicitor cannot be accepted, unless the same is proved, as defined under section 17 of the Contract Act. Thus, therefore, he submitted that, mere allegations would not suffice, unless the case of the petitioners would fall under section 17 of the Act.
12. The principle contention raised is that the petitioners were not party to the suit proceedings nor the signatory of the compromise decree and the factum of fraud having not been established, strictly in terms of section 17 of the Indian Contract Act and, therefore, the decree cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioners, who were not party to the terms of the compromise. Reference can be made on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.Srinivasappa vs. M.Mallamma (2022) SccOline SC 636 to submit that the party seeking to avoid the terms of consent decree has to establish the factum of fraud strictly so as to avoid the terms of compromise. Thus, therefore, when the petitioners were not party to the compromise, they cannot question the legality and validity of the terms of the compromise and decree.
13. Learned Senior Counsel, after referring the judgement of the Apex Court delivered in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jalour Singh (2008)2 SCC 660, has submitted that the decree passed in a Lok Adalat can be challenged on a limited grounds under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that, as Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined the petitioners were not party to the impugned decree, as a result, the decree would not bind to the petitioner, and it is open for the petitioners to examine its legal effect in the substantial suit filed at their instance. (Chitralekha Builders vs. GIC Employees Sonal Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Limited), (2021) SccOline SC 153.
14. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Percy Kavina, relying on the case of Smt.Shalu vs. Vineet delivered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court (2013) SccOline 25179, contended that the parties to the award of Lok Adalat are bound by it and no appeal against it lies and it can be challenged only under the Constitution of India, however, in the present case, the petitioners were not party in the suit and when they were not party to the award, it would not be binding upon them, and, therefore, the only remedy for them is to challenge the decree by filing a separate suit and the same is pending for its adjudication before the competent Court and in that view of the matter, the compromise decree passed by the Court after following due procedure, which does not result into any miscarriage of justice nor causes any prejudice to the rights of the petitioners and, therefore, no case is made out, warranting interference by this Court.
15. Heard at length learned Senior Counsels for the respective parties.
Considered the written synopsis submitted by the parties. Perused the material placed on record.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that both the parties are claiming their right over the subject suit plots and in support of their claim, both the parties are Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined relying on their respective agreements, share certificates and possession receipts issued by the society. Thus, therefore, the contention that the suit plots claimed by the petitioners are not same as what is claimed by the respondents in the suits, is not acceptable. The reason is that this Court, in the matter of Appeal from Order, vide, its order dated 23.03.2009, after considering the renumbering of the plots, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thus, the dispute relates to the four parcels of land are the same, which were referred in the compromise decree under challenge.
17. The principle contention raised by learned Senior Counsel Mr.Yatin Oza is that the compromise decree obtained by practicing fraud/misrepresentation on the petitioners as well as the Court, and the same is null and void and if the decree is not set aside, then it binds to the petitioners in subsequent suit. This Court finds merits in the submissions and the reasons are as follows:
a. Upon careful reading of the plaint (RCS No.464 of 2002), it was alleged against the respondent No.5-original defendant herein that he is doing brokerage business in the real estate and had expressed his wish and intention to purchase the suit plots, however, the plaintiff i.e. respondents no.1 to 4, have denied to accept the proposal. It is further alleged that, in view of the refusal of the proposal, the ego of the defendant was hurt, as a result he met the plaintiffs on 06.08.2002 and threatened him that he will encroach upon the suit plots and sell it to the third party. In this context, respondents No.1 to 4, filed aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction that they will be declared as owner of the suit lands and the defendant Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined No.5 be directed not to disturb or enter into suit plots and he be permanently restrained for doing so by issuance permanent injunction. The suit was filed on 07.08.2002. After notice and summons, the returnable date was fixed on 14.08.2002. It is necessary to take a note of the act of Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner, vide its report dated 08.08.2002, made a local inspection and submitted its report showing therein the possession of the suit plots of respondent No.1 to 4 along with the site map. The defendant respondent No.5 before the Civil Court did not file his written statement on 14.08.2002. The respondents, parties of the suit, filed their compromise on 16.08.2002, wherein the defendant had accepted the pleadings and facts of the suit and agreed the terms and conditions of the consent purshis Exh.16 that respondents No.1 to 4,original plaintiffs, are the owners of the suit plots and, henceforth, he will not disturb their possession in any manner. On 17.08.2002, the Civil Court recorded the consent terms of the compromise in the presence of the parties and after due verification, recorded the compromise and disposed of the suit in Lok Adalat and ordered to draw a decree accordingly.
b. The aforesaid events of sequence, would give rise to draw in inference that the respondents No.1 to 4 came to know about the transactions made by the petitioners with respect to suit plots and to establish and prove their possession of the plots, a collusive suit joining the respondent No.5, the original defendant was filed with a specific relief to make a local Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined inspection by Court Commissioner, as provided under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. The Court Commissioner's report is on record, which speaks voluminous about the intention of respondents No.1 to 4. The moment the Court Commissioner submitted its report, within five days, the Compromise purshis at Exh.16 was submitted by the respondents, admitting the pleadings and relief, and under the guise of the compromise, the Civil Court, passed an award in a Lok Adalat. In the suit, the Sterling Society had not been joined as a party defendant. Had the Society been a party to the proceedings, than the Court could have an opportunity to consider the stand of the society about the claim over the properties and so-called threat given by the defendant respondent No.5. The defendant respondent No.5 herein belongs to the same community of respondents No.1 to 4. No prudent person would believe that the person, who intends to purchase the property, would illegally encroach upon the land, as the defendant never visited the place nor sought any documents from the plaintiffs to verify the title etc. Thus, the entire cause of action mentioned in the plaint and other pleadings seems to be without any cause and legal foundation and the suit was filed with a view to create an evidence of possession by way of Commissioner's report, which directly affect the rights of the petitioners with respect to the suit plots. Thus, this Court is of the prima facie view that with a view to create evidence of possession, without any cause of action, the collusive suit was filed supressing Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined material facts before the Court with a view to furstrate the rights of the petitioners and, therefore, the moment, the Court Commissioner's task was over, the suit was disposed of by way of compromise.
c. It needs to be noted that the declaration in the suit was sought to the effect that the plaintiffs be declared as owner of the suit plots. Both the parties are claiming their right, title and interest over the plots. In such circumstances, considering the facts of the compromise suit and the Court Commissioner's Report showing the possession of the plaintiffs, the intention of the plaintiffs could be gathered from the aforesaid sequence of events that the suit was deliberately filed for taking unfair advantage of the petitioners.
d. It is settled position of law that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud and is called deceit. An act of fraud on the Court is always viewed seriously and a collusive action with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. e. In the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs.Jagganath (1994) 1 SCC 1, the principles of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishononest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with a clean hands. A person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is deception in order to gain by another's loss. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents, which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds the vital documents, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.
18.In light of the aforementioned principles, on the issue of fraud, and applying the same to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the compromise decree along with it, the terms and conditions obtained by playing fraud and/or misrepresentation and same is not sustained in law.
19.The contention raised by the petitioners is that the decree was passed in violation of provision of sub-section (5) of section 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.On bare perusal of section clause-I of sub-section(5) of section 19, it provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before the Court. Section 20 provides the procedure for taking cognizance of the case by the Lok Adalat. It further provides that where in any case referred to in clause 1 of sub-section (5) of section 19, the parties thereof agree for settlement, then Court may take cognizance of the case. In the facts of the present case, on the day of Lok Adalat, the parties were present and agreed upon for a compromise. Thus, a plain reading of aforesaid provisions, would show that at the request of party, the Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined Court was in charge of the work of Lok Adalat and straightaway took cognizance of the compromise, as in the facts of the present case, the Civil Suit was pending before the Lok Adalat Court. Therefore, the plea regarding non-passing of order to refer the matter in the Lok Adalat, so far facts of the present case is concerned is having no any merits.
20.It is the contention of the respondents that the compromise decree does not bind to the petitioners, as they were not party to the suit proceedings or signatory of the consent decree, and therefore, they are not legally entitled to challenge the impugned decree passed in Lok Adalat. This Court does not find merits in the contentions. The Apex Court in the case of Jalour Singh (supra) held that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and no appeal lies against it to any Court, if any party wants to challenge such an award based on the settlement, but it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, that too, on very limited grounds. The respondents tried to interpret the term, " any party", who have signed the terms of a settlement or party to the suits or proceedings. Any party means any affected and aggrieved party, over and above the parties, who were signatory of the settlement or the proceedings. In other words, where third party is affected by an order, he or she can challenge it by availing appropriate remedy. In the facts of the present case, it is on record that the petitioners by way of agreement paid full amount of consideration with respect to suit plots and necessary share certificates of the society were issued Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined in their name and possession receipts given to them by the society. In such circumstances, the declaration of ownership of the suit lands decreed by way of compromise decree would certainly affect the rights of the petitioners over the suit plots. Thus, the petitioners are having all the rights to challenge the decree, which has adversely affect their substantive rights over the property. Thus, therefore, the contention about non-entitlement to file this petition challenging the compromise decree on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the suit proceedings or signatory of the compromise, having no any merits. This Court is not in agreement with a view taken in the case of Smt. Shalu(supra).
21.That the contention about delay in filing the petition being raised as despite of having their knowledge about the passing of the decree and after rejection of the appeal against thereof, the petition at belated stage is not maintainable. This contention, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, is not acceptable. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act provides that every award of Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. Thus, in the facts of the present case, in 2006, the petitioners came to know about the alleged compromise decree. They resorted the legal proceedings challenging the decree by way of filing the appeal with delay condonation application and the said delay condonation application on technical ground was rejected by the appellate Court on 15.10.2015. Thus, therefore, approaching the wrong forum would not be a ground available to the other side Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined that there is delay or latches on the part of the parties in approaching the High Court. In the present case as observed hereinabove, the impugned compromise decree obtained by playing fraud on the party as well as Court. The Apex Court in its various judgements time and again held that the person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any time and at any stage. Thus, the plea of delay in approaching this Court would not be a sufficient ground to reject this petition.
22.It was emphasized that the impugned compromise decree will not bind the petitioners and clarification on this aspect may be made. The compromise decree would certainly bind to the present petitioners and also it would come into way in the civil proceedings before the competent Civil Court. Thus, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that where the original plaintiffs are declared as owner of the suit plots and the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court, the concession made by the respondents is not suffice. In order to decide and adjudicate the issues raised in the Civil Suit, the existence of the compromise decree would bind to the parties as well as the Court.
23.In view of the aforestated forgoing reasons, the order passed below Exh.16 dated 17.08.2002, recording the compromise is hereby recalled and decree to this effect drawn is set aside. The suit RCS No.464 of 2002 is ordered to be restored on its original file. The petitioners are at liberty to make a prayer for joining them in the proceedings.
Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19796/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
24.In the result, the petition stands allowed.
25.The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and is confined to decide the issue raised hereinabove in the petition. The trial Court before whom the suits are pending, without being influenced by the observations made herein decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) FURTHER ORDER Learned Senior counsel for the respondents, prays for stay of the operation and implementation of the order, mainly on the ground that the compromise decree was passed in the year 2002. This Court is of the view that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and reasons assigned in the order, the request is not acceded to.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:34:07 IST 2023