Allu Sankara Rao vs Seedharapu Savitri
2021 Latest Caselaw 2777 AP

                HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.308 of 2021
                                PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.   Date                               ORDER                              OFFICE
No.                                                                          NOTE
03 02.08.2021 MVR,J
                                  S.A.No.308 of 2021

                      Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned
                counsel for the appellant. Upon considering the decrees
                and judgments of the trial Court and 1st appellate
                Court, since this matter requires consideration and
                determination on the following questions of law,
                ADMIT.
                   1. Whether the Courts below have properly dealt
                      the oral and documentary evidence as the
                      respondent Nos. 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2

themselves have admitted the execution of Ex.A1-Registered Agreement of sale as envisaged under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, apart from that appellant/plaintiff has proved his case in all aspects?

2. Whether the 1st appellate court is justified in disposing the appeal without formulating proper points for consideration and more preferably without evaluating the oral and documentary evidence and also failed in non considering the admissions made by the respondents, which has resulted the miscarriage of justice or not?

3. Whether the Courts below have properly exercised the 'discretion' as envisaged under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, as both the Courts have not exercised the discretion in judicious manner and granted decree for alternative relief only under Section 22(1)(b) which is contra to the evidence on record?

4. Whether the Courts below have dealt with Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, since as per sub Section 2, the Award of Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court and whereas the appellant/plaintiff is not the party to the said Award, as such the said award can be questioned in a civil suit, moreover it is not an appeal?

5. Whether the Courts below correctly applied the decisions reported in 2015(3) ALT 673 and 2016(1) AKLT 675 as both judgments held that the third parties can maintain a suit in respect of the award passed by Lok Adalat and it is not barred under Section 9 of CPC?

Notice to respondents 1,2 and 5 to 7.

List during the 1st week of November, 2021.

_____ MVR,J I.A.No.1 of 2021

Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner, represents that he is not pressing this application for certain technical reasons. Permission is granted. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2021 is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to file fresh petition for the same interim relief.

_____ MVR,J RR