Order: (Per Hon'Ble Sri Justice ... vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3401 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
                          AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                   WRIT PETITION No.17682 of 2012

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

      This Writ Petition is filed challenging the legal validity of the

award dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench and to set

aside the same.

      2.      The facts of the case show that the case on hand is yet

another classic example of playing fraud in the Lok Adalats in

obtaining awards, particularly, in suits filed for partition of the family

properties.

      3.      Relevant facts necessary to dispose of the Writ Petition

may briefly be stated as follows:

      The plaintiff has filed the suit against 5 defendants for

partition of the plaint schedule properties therein. The plaintiff and

the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit are the siblings, whereas the 5th

defendant is purchaser of some of the properties relating to the

family. In the said suit, defendants 1 and 3 to 5 were set ex parte.

Only 2nd defendant originally contested the suit. After defendants 1

and 3 to 5 were set ex parte, 2nd defendant who contested the suit did

not oppose the claim of the plaintiff who claimed 1/5th share in the

plaint schedule properties. Thereafter, on a joint memo filed by the
                                               2                         CMR, J.& TRR, J
                                                                    W.P.No.17682 of 2012




plaintiff and 2nd defendant, the trial Court referred the matter to Lok

Adalat for settlement.              The trial Court did not order notices to

defendants 1 and 3 to 5 before referring the matter to Lok Adalat.

Even the Lok Adalat also did not issue notices to defendants 1 and 3

to 5 before settling the matter and passing the impugned award. In

the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat, as per the impugned

award, 1/5th share in the plaint schedule was allotted to the plaintiff.

But the award is silent as to the share allotted to defendants 1 and 3

to 5. Therefore, the 3rd defendant in the said suit filed the present

Writ Petition questioning the legal validity of the impugned award.

          4.     Heard        the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,    Sri

S.Lakshmi          Narayana         Reddy,    learned   Standing     Counsel        for

respondent No.1-Legal Service Committee and the learned counsel

for the respondents 2 and 4, who are the plaintiffs and D2 in the said

suit. None appeared for respondents 3 and 4 to 8.

5. The present case is clearly covered by the earlier

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of

B.Srinatha Reddy v. District Legal Service Authority, Kadapa

and others1. At paragraph Nos.36 to 40, the Division Bench of this

Court held as follows:

36. So, the paramount question to be considered is whether the award passed by the Lok Adalat without issuing

2019 (6) ALD 443 (D.B.) 3 CMR, J.& TRR, J W.P.No.17682 of 2012

notice to the 2nd defendant is valid under law and whether it is legally sustainable or not. In order to test the validity of the said award on the said ground, it is appropriate to consider the relevant provisions in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed thereunder.

As per Section 19(5) of the 1987 Act, a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-(i) any case pending before the Court or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. In the instant case clause (i) applies as it is a matter pending before the Court. The words used in the above Section 19(5) "parties to dispute" are significant to note which means all the parties to the dispute. So, the Lok Adalat has to make an endeavour to arrive at a compromise or settlement between all the parties to the dispute. Section 20 of the 1987 Act deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. It postulates that where any case is referred to as per clause (i) of sub- section (5) of Section 19, if the parties thereof agree or if one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if the Court is prima facie satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Now, it is relevant to consider the proviso to Section 20 of the Act which says that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. In view of settled legal position as already discussed supra, it is held that the 2nd defendant continues to be a party to the suit despite the order setting him ex 4 CMR, J.& TRR, J W.P.No.17682 of 2012

parte. So, his consent is essential to refer the suit to Lok Adalat for settlement. He is entitled to be heard as per proviso to Section 20 of 1987 Act. So, without affording him an opportunity of being heard, suit was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement.

37. Now it is important to note clauses (3) and (4) of Section 20 of the 1987 Act. Clause (3) of Section 20 mandates that when a case is referred to Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) by the Court, the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case and arrive at.a compromise or settlement between the "parties". Here again the word "parties" is consciously used by the Legislature which means all parties to the suit. So, it should make an endeavour to secure the presence of all parties to the suit for the settlement. The Lok Adalat did not secure the presence of the petitioner herein, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, even though he is a co- sharer according to the admitted case of the plaintiff. Clause (4) of Section 20 envisages that every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. Here also the word "parties" is used. So, while determining the reference, the Lok Adalat is under an obligation to follow the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

38. Regulation 31 of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority Regulations, framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29-A of the Act also mandates that the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, who is convening and organizing Lok Adalat shall inform every 5 CMR, J.& TRR, J W.P.No.17682 of 2012

litigant whose case is referred to the Lok Adalat well in time so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare himself for the Lok Adalat. The words "every litigant" referred above shall be construed as "every party to the suit".

39. Thus, the above referred provisions in the 1987 Act and the Regulation 31 in the A.P. State Legal Services Authority Regulations clearly indicate that a notice to a party to the suit or the litigant is to be issued before referring the suit to the Lok Adalat by the Court and also before settling the matter in the Lok Adalat. The mere fact that the 2nd defendant was set ex parte in the suit by itself is not a valid ground to construe that he is not a party to the suit or a litigant so as to hold that he is not entitled to any notice before the matter is settled in the Lok Adalat. Despite the order setting him ex parte in the suit on account of his non- appearance, he continues to be a party to the suit and a litigant relating to the said proceeding for all practical purposes. As held supra, the law is well settled that even if the defendant is set ex parte, still he is entitled to participate in the trial of the suit. When that is the settled legal position, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning or any imagination that he ceased to be a party to the suit and not entitled to notice before settlement of the dispute in the Lok Adalat. Therefore, we hold that the 2nd defendant continues to be a party to the suit even after the order dated 10.6.2011 setting him ex parte in the suit. When once the 2nd defendant is found to be a party to the suit, despite the fact that he was set ex parte in the suit, he is entitled to a notice before referring the matter to the Lok Adalat by the Trial Court and also after referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. Regulation No. 31 of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority 6 CMR, J.& TRR, J W.P.No.17682 of 2012

Regulations, 1996 (for short, the "1996 Regulations") clearly mandates that notice is to be given by the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to every litigant when the matter was referred to it for settlement.

40. In utter violation of the procedure prescribed under the 1987 Act and the 1996 Regulations, the District Legal Services Authority did not issue any notice to the 2nd defendant after taking cognizance of the matter for settlement in terms of the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The impugned award was, therefore, passed without notice to the 2nd defendant who is a party to the suit and who is a litigant to the said proceeding and it is also passed behind his back in the Lok Adalat. It is simply noted in the award that the 2nd defendant was set ex parte. It is to be noticed here that even in the impugned award a share was allotted to the 2nd defendant as the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise granting 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and also to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 each. So, it also indicates that even the Lok Adalat Bench treated the 2nd defendant as a party to the suit. If it has not treated the 2nd defendant also as a party to the suit, it could not have passed an award allotting 1/3rd share to him also. So, at the time of settlement of the dispute in the Lok Adalat, when the Lok Adalat Bench has considered and treated the 2nd defendant also as a party to the suit, it ought to have issued notice to him before passing the impugned award. So, the facts and circumstances of the case show that the award under challenge was passed casually and mechanically without considering the legal implications of the said award.

                                      7                        CMR, J.& TRR, J
                                                          W.P.No.17682 of 2012

It smacks of complete non-application of mind by the Lok Adalat Bench to the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. In the above reported judgment also, it was a suit filed

for partition. One of the defendants to the suit remained ex parte.

Thereafter, the plaintiff and other contesting defendant colluded

together and added some more properties in the schedule without

notice to the party who remained ex parte. Subsequently, on a joint

memo filed by the plaintiff and the contesting defendant, suit was

referred for settlement to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat also did not

issue any notice to the defendant who remained ex parte. Lok Adalat

has passed an award partitioning the properties including the

personal properties of the defendant who remained ex parte.

7. The said award was questioned by the said defendant,

who remained ex parte and whose properties are subsequently

included in the partition, on the ground that the matter was referred

to Lok Adalat behind his back and award was also passed behind his

back.

8. After considering the relevant provisions of law, both

under the Code of Civil Procedure and also the A.P.Legal Services

Authority Act, the Court held that even if a person was set ex parte,

still he is considered to be a party to the suit for all practical

purposes and a notice is required to be given to him, particularly, in 8 CMR, J.& TRR, J W.P.No.17682 of 2012

a suit for partition before referring the matter to Lok Adalat by the

trial Court and that Lok Adalat also has to issue notice to all the

parties including the party who remained ex parte and then, arrive at

a settlement and pass the award. As the said procedure prescribed

under law is not followed, the award in the said case was ultimately

set aside.

9. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely

applies to the present facts of the case. In the instant case also, no

notice was given by the trial Court before referring the matter to Lok

Adalat to defendants 1 and 3 to 5, who were set ex parte. No notices

were given by the Lok Adalat also to defendants 1 and 3 to 5. So, the

award is undoubtedly passed behind their back. As can be seen

from the impugned award, 1/5th share was allotted to the plaintiff in

the said suit. But it is silent as to the share that was allotted to

defendants 1 and 3 to 5. Therefore, D3 who is the petitioner herein,

now felt aggrieved by the same, challenged the said award on the

aforesaid grounds.

10. In view of the clear law laid down in the aforesaid

judgment of the Division Bench, which applies to the present facts of

the case, the impugned order is legally unsustainable and the same

is liable to be set aside.

                                        9                           CMR, J.& TRR, J
                                                               W.P.No.17682 of 2012




       11.   Resultantly,   the    Writ    Petition   is   allowed    and     the

impugned award dated 17.03.2012 passed in the Lok Adalat Bench

is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Lok Adalat with a

direction to issue notices to all the parties to the suit, i.e., to the

plaintiff and also to defendants 1 to 5 and then, if they arrive at any

settlement, pass the award to that effect accordingly. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 13.07.2023 siva 10 CMR, J.& TRR, J W.P.No.17682 of 2012

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.17682 of 2012

Date: 13.07.2023

siva