Karnataka High Court
Sri M Murthy vs Barakathulla H S on 30 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30079
WP No. 12709 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.12709 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M MURTHY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.6 NEAR GURUKUL SCHOOL,
J P NAGAR 9TH PHAS,E 7TH BLOCK,
BEHIND NANDI GURDON APARTMENT,
ALAHALLI VILLAGE, ANJANAPURA POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU 560062
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MEGALAMANE PRABHU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by JUANITA 1. BARAKATHULLA H S
THEJESWINI S/O LATE SIGBATHULLA,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK NEAR MASJID CIRCLE,
HAROHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI,
HAROHALLI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112
2. SMT KHURSHIDA BANU
W/O RAHMATH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30079
WP No. 12709 of 2024
RAMANAGARA DITRICT 562112
3. SMT KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4. SRI BASAVAIAH C K
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
5. SMT SUKANYA M
W/O BASAVAIAH C K,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
6. SRI RAVINDRA C K
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
7. SMT RAMYA H K
W/O RAVINDRA C K,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE
R/AT CHIKKASADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI, HOROHALLI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
R3 TO R7 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AWARD DATED
15/12/2023 BEFORE LOK-ADALAT PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA IN OS NO. 60/2023
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED
09/12/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE
O.S. NO.60/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30079
WP No. 12709 of 2024
AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON
MERITS AND ETC. .
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner who had filed an impleading application in I.A.No.II before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura in O.S.No.60/2023 is before this Court aggrieved of the fraudulent action on the part of the respondents who were the plaintiffs as well as the defendants in the suit in advancing the case and ensuring that the matter is placed before the Lok Adalath and an award is obtained, thereby defrauding the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.P.Hegde, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with late Sri Kempegowda and his sons who are defendants No.2 to 4 in the suit, for purchasing 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.721/2 old Sy.No.721 situated at Harohalli Village, Kanakapura, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 Ramanagara District. The agreement was entered into on 25.09.2014 and the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.8,00,000/-. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- under the agreement and the petitioner was waiting for the owners of the property to secure a 11E sketch to enable registration of the sale deed. However, the owners of the property appeared to have colluded with respondents No.1 and 2 herein and respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.60/2023 against the widow of Sri Kempegowda and the children of Sri Kempegowda seeking specific performance of the contract, in terms of the agreement of sale dated 29.09.2020. When the petitioner came to know of such fraudulent action on the part of the respondents herein, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 26.07.2023 to the respondents herein. The petitioner called upon the respondents to execute the sale deed within a period of 15 days failing which the petitioner would take legal steps to enforce the specific performance of the agreement.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite such a legal notice being issued, respondents No.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.60/2023 on 18.01.2023. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.II seeking impleadment in the suit on 08.11.2023. The matter was adjourned to 31.01.2024. However, without intimation to the petitioner, the parties before the Court got the matter advanced, filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint regarding description of the suit schedule property. The application for amendment was allowed by the Court on 09.12.2023 and on the same day, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and in the order sheet of the Court, it is recorded on 09.12.2023 that negotiations were held, parties have agreed to settle the case and have voluntarily filed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. In the order sheet of the Court, the Judicial Conciliator and the Advocate Conciliator have recorded satisfaction that parties have filed compromise petition voluntarily and -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 knowing the consequences. Accordingly, the Lok Adalath accepted the terms of the compromise petition and passed an award in terms of the compromise petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held in the case of Smt.Renuka Vs. Sri Ramanand and Another in W.P.No.103766/2018 dated 31.03.2022 that if a compromise petition is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC before the Court, it is for the Court to record the compromise and the matter cannot be referred to Lok Adalath. Various directions have been issued by the co- ordinate Bench having noticed that several such complaints have been received regarding the procedural irregularity. The Court noticed the earlier decision in the case of Smt.Akkubai Vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2051 that a common order- sheet cannot be maintained by the Court as well as the Lok Adalath. A Court cannot be converted into a Lok Adalath. The Conciliator has no place inside the Court. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 The very object of accepting the Lok Adalath as an alternative mode of resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not need adjudication. The matter which could be resolved by persuasion, negotiation and understanding should be taken out of adjudication process and should be resolved by means of Lok Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are disposed of expeditiously and the Courts will be saving the time of adjudicatory process, and they can utilize that time which is saved, in adjudicating the cases.
5. In a recent decision, in the case of Smt.Pooja and Sri Siddanna and Others in W.P.No.205205/2019 dated 18.03.2024, similar observations have been made and it has been held that it is a settled principle of law that the petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is to be accepted by the Court after entering satisfaction. Such a power is not available to the conciliators who preside over the Lok Adalath.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that subsequent to the impugned award being passed, the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 petitioner has also filed O.S.No.58/2024 seeking specific performance of the contract.
7. Learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the said respondents have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondents No.3 to 7 in terms of the compromise petition and therefore, this Court should not accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents have acted fraudulently only to defraud the petitioner herein. Learned Counsel submits that if it was true that the parties before the Court were trying to defraud the petitioner, then there was no need for the plaintiffs to have parted with a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- under the compromise decree. All payments are made through cheques.
8. Though notice is served on respondents No.3 to 7, they have remained unrepresented.
9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and having perused the petition papers, this Court -9- NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 finds that although the position of law as reiterated in the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel would clearly postulate that if a compromise petition is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC before the Court, the same cannot be considered in a Lok Adalath. Nevertheless, this Court also has to take into consideration the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 contend that they have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondents No.3 to 7 in terms of the compromise petition and the award is passed by the Lok Adalath. Respondents No.3 to 7 cannot be permitted to take advantage of the situation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the impugned award passed by the Lok Adalath is required to be set aside, nevertheless, the Trial Court will have to consider the matter on merits while taking into consideration the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondents No.3 to 7. On the other hand, the petitioner appears to have paid a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- to respondents No.3 to
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 7 in the year 2014, as could be found in the legal notice issued by the petitioner.
10. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned award dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Lok Adalath, in O.S.No.60/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter stands remitted back to the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura, while re-
opening the suit in O.S.No.60/2023.
iv) The learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, shall consider the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in I.A.No.II on its merits.
v) The learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura is directed to hear O.S.No.60/2023 along with O.S.No.58/2024 which is filed by the petitioner herein in respect of the same suit schedule property.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30079 WP No. 12709 of 2024 All contentions are left open to be urged by the parties before the Civil Court. Any remarks passed by this Court during the course of this order shall not prejudice the case of any of the parties before the Civil Court.
Registry is directed to bring to the notice of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and all the District Legal Services Authorities the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.103766/2018 dated 31.03.2022 at Dharwad Bench. The District Legal Services Authorities shall be apprised of the directions issued in the said case, more particularly, that proceedings of the Lok Adalath shall not be written in the order sheets of the Courts. The order passed in W.P.No.103766/2018 shall also be circulated to all the Judicial Officers in the State.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/-
CT: JL