Jaleshwar Mahto vs Subodhani Devi & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4423 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        C.M.P. No. 151 of 2020
         Jaleshwar Mahto                               .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
         Subodhani Devi & Ors.                          .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

         For the Petitioner(s) :          Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                          Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
                                          Mrs. Bandana Kumari, Advocate
         For the O.P. 1 to 5 :             Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
         For the O.P. No.6 :              Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
                        ......
12/ 04.11.2022. Heard the parties.

1. Award dated 08.02.2020 of the Lok Adalat, Ranchi in Original Case No.1297 of 2019 (arising out of Partition Suit No.412 of 2011) is under challenge in the civil miscellaneous petition.

2. Petitioner (Jaleshwar Mahto) was Defendant no.3 in Partition Suit No.412 of 2011 which was filed by Plaintiff Subodhni Devi and Ors. against the Defendants. The suit land was recorded in the revisional survey record of rights in the exclusive possession of Kunju Mahto. It was interlia pleaded in the plaint that defendant no.1 had sold specific portion of the suit land to different persons without the consent of the plaintiffs.Defendantno.3 Jaleshwar Mahto intervened in the suit and contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been pleaded that plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2, jointly executed a deed agreement for sale dated 31.3.19 99 in favour of this defendant for the entire lands of RS plot numbers 543, 562 563, 565, 566 and 567 of khata no.92 situated at village Mahilong, PS Tatisilwai, district Ranchi and delivered the possession of the said land. This petitioner filed title suit no.91 of 2010 impleading the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2 claiming a decree for specific performance of the said agreement. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2010 and in pursuance to the said judgment registered deed of sale was executed on 14.5.2010.

3.Defendantno.1 executed sale deeds with respect to part of the suit property in favour of defendant no.4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said Partition Suit and after framing of the issues, the matter was referred before the Lok Adalat on the prayer of Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4, but without any notice or the consent of this petitioner. It is further submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat only on the basis of the oral prayer made by Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4. However, consent was neither given by this petitioner nor by Opp. Party No.6 for the matter being referred.

4. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant nos.1 and 2 without consent of this petitioner fraudulently got the award prepared which is

against the letters and spirit of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Section 20 of the said Act, 1987 specifically mandates that it cannot be disposed of in a Lok Adalat without consent of the parties.

5.Learned Senior counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Panna Lal Prasad vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr., reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 579 as well as in the case of Oriental Insurance Company through Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 255.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 have fairly conceded that it is true that the matter was referred and decided at the Lok Adalat without the knowledge and notice to this petitioner. Notice was neither served upon this petitioner who was defendant no.3 in the suit nor upon defendant no.6. But this error was bona fide and since the matter lingered in litigation since long and the parties were not interested to prolong the litigation, as such, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat.

It is further submitted that so far defendant no.3 is concerned, it is submitted that he has remedy by filing the suit to carve out his share of the property which he claims to have been sold by registered sale-deed.

7. From the submissions made on behalf of both sides it is apparent that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat without notice or knowledge to the petitioner and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is a partition suit and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the defendants have even a right to be interposed if the plaintiff decides to withdraw the suit.

8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance the Award dated 08.02.2020 passed by the Lok Adalat, Ranchi in Original Case No.1297 of 2019 (arising out of Partition Suit No.412 of 2011) is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the instant CMP stands allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/