Bajirao Kshirsagar vs Jayasingh Nimbalkar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3093 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 2 N D DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

 WRIT PETITION NO.105196 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN
1.    SRI. BAJIRA O KS HIRSAGAR,
      S/O GANA PATHRA O KSHIRSA GAR,
      AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS,
      OCC: BUSINESS/A GRICULTURE,
      R/O : DATTA GA LLI-NIPPANI.

2.    SRI. CHANDRA PRAKASH KSHIRSAGAR,
      S/O GANA PATHRA O KSHIRSA GAR,
      AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS,
      OCC: BUISNESS/A GRICULTURE,
      R/O: DATTA GALLI -NIPPANI .

3.    SMT. MANGAL MAGAR,
      W/O ASHOKARAO MAGAR,
      AGE: 48 YEARS , OCCP: HOUSEHOLD
      R/O POSTAL QUARTERS,
      ATHANI.

4.    SMT. RAJASHREE J AGATAP
      W/O RAJENDRA JA GATAP,
      AGE: 45 OCCP: HOUSEHOLD
      R/O: KOLHA PUR - MAHARASHTRA.
                                     ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADV OCATE)

AND
1.    MR. JAYASINGH NI MBALKAR
      S/O DATTU NIMBALKAR,
      AGE: 71, OCCP: PVT SERVICE,
      R/O NIMBALKARW ADA, DATTA GALLI,
                            2


      NIPPANI , DT: BELGAUM.

2.    MR. BALASA HEB MULIK
      S/O: DATTATRAYA MULIK,
      AGE: 77, OCCP: PVT SERVICE,
      R/O NIMBALKARW ADA, DATTA GALLI,
      NIPPANI , DT: BELGAUM.

3.    MR. VISHNU MULI K,
      S/O DATTATRAYA MULIK,
      AGE 71, OCCP:INSURANCE AGENT ,

4.    MR. SUBHASH MULIK
      S/O. DATTATRAYA MULIK,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: PVT SERVICE,

5.    SMT. HEMALATA MULIK,
      W/O: PRABAKAR M ULIK
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: HOUS EHOLD,

6.    MR. MAHESH MULI K,
      S/O: PRABAKAR M ULIK,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: N OT KNOWN ,

7.    KUMARI. MANISHA MULIK,
      D/O: PRABHAKAR MULIK,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: HOUS E HOLD ,

8.    MR. NEELESH MULIK,
      S/O PRABAKAR MULIK,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: N OT KNOWN ,

9.    MR. RAMESH MULI K
      S/O DATTATRAYA MULIK,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: PVT SERVICE.

10.   SMT. MALATI MULI K
      W/O: MAHADAVARAO MULIK ,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: HOUS E HOLD ,

11.   SMT. SHANTABAI MULIK,
      W/O YESHWANT MULIK,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: HOUS E HOLD .
                               3



      R-3 T O 11 ARE R/ O NIMBALKARWAD ,
      PATTA GA LLI , NI PPANI, DT: BELGA UM.
                                         ... RESPONDENT S
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH,
    ADV OCATE FOR R-4 & 5;
    R- 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 AND 2(A) NOTICE HELD
    S UFFICIENT; R-10(A) SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF CONS TITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE   JUDGMENT       &   DECREE      D ATED   28.07.2007   IN
O.S .NO.98/ 2006 AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY CIVIL
JUDGE (SR. DVN) - CHIKODI .)


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT , MADE THE F OLLOWING:

                           ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioners seek

quashing of the impugned judgment and decree dated

28.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.98/2006 pursuant to

the Lok Adalath award on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Chikkodi (for short "the trial Court") and for

other reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

Perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ

petition and referring to the documents produced by

the petitioners, learned counsel for petitioners

submits that a perusal of the plaint in the said suit,

O.S.No.98/2006 indicates that the suit schedule

properties comprise of plaint 'A' schedule properties

and plaint 'B' schedule properties. It is his specific

contention that the petitioners have right, title,

interest and possession over the plaint schedule

properties and as such, the said Lok Adalath

compromise decree/award passed in the said suit

without impleading the petitioners is vitiated on

account of fraud and misrepresentation apart from

the same being collusive in nature and as such, the

petitioners are before this Court by way of the

present petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.4 and 5 submits that there is no merit in the

petition and the same is liable to be rejected.

5. The material on record indicates that it is

the specific contention of the petitioners that they

have alleged independent right, title, interest and

possession over the suit schedule properties and that

the respondents were not entitled to enter into a

compromise by leaving out the petitioners. In this

context, it is relevant to state that it is trite law that

any decree/compromise decree/Lok Adalath award

etc., is not binding upon a non-party and such a

person is entitled to take recourse to such remedies

as available in law. It is therefore clear that in the

light of the specific contention put forth by the

petitioners that they have independent right, title and

interest over the plaint schedule properties involved

in the said suit, O.S.No.98/2006, without expressing

any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival

contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose

of this petition by holding that the said Lok Adalath

award/decree is not binding upon the petitioners and

reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to take

recourse to such remedies as available in law.

Subject to the aforesaid observations and

directions, the petition stands disposed of.

In view of disposal of this Writ Petition, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for

consideration and accordingly disposed of.

SD JUDGE

BM C