Karnataka High Court

Somashekhar G M vs Shashirekha on 3 January, 2022

Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

  WRIT PETITION NO.12163 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SOMASHEKHAR G.M.,
S/O MURTHYNJAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: PROCESS SERVER,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSADURGA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KANTHARAJAPPA M.G, ADVOCATE)


AND:

SHASHIREKHA,
W/O SOAMSHEKHAR G.M.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SAMRUDHI NILAYA,
POST OFFICE ROAD,
KAMANA BHAVI EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
                                2




HOSADURGA IN EX.NO.16 OF 2020 DATED 17.07.2020 ON
I.A.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT
PETITION.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order

dated 17.07.2020 on maintainability on the Execution

Petition passed in Ex.No.16/2020 by the Prl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, has filed this writ

petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The respondent has filed a pre-litigation case

before District Legal Service Authority in

PLC.No.19/2016. The respondent and petitioner have

entered into compromise and presented compromise

petition before the District Legal Service Authority.

The District Legal Service Authority accepted the

compromise petition on 13.04.2016 and petition came

to be disposed of in terms of the compromise. The

petitioner did not comply with the terms of the

compromise petition. Respondent filed a Execution

Petition in Ex.No.16/2020 before the Prl. Civil Judge

and JMFC, Hosadurga. In the said Execution Petition,

petitioner has raised objections regarding

maintainability of the Execution Petition.

2.2. The Executing Court after hearing the

parties, has passed the impugned order vide

Annexure-N dated 17.07.2020, holding that the

Execution Petition filed by the respondent is

maintainable and award passed in PLC.No.19/2016 is

executable by the Executing Court. Petitioner being

aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Execution Petition filed by the respondent is

not maintainable. He further submits that Executing

Court has committed an error in deducting 2/3rd of

salary of the petitioner towards recovery of

maintenance amount, which is contrary to Section

60(1)(i) of CPC. Hence, on these grounds, he prays

to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that parties have entered into

compromise and have filed a compromise petition.

The petitioner has failed to fulfill the terms of the

compromise petition. He further submits that the

award passed by the District Legal Service Authority is

decreed in terms of Section 22E of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987. He further submits that the

Executing Court was justified in holding that the

Execution Petition filed by the respondent is

maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to

dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondent has

filed a petition for maintenance before the District

Legal Service Authority and parties have entered into

compromise before the District Legal Service Authority

and petition came to be allowed vide order dated

13.04.2016, wherein the petitioner was directed to

pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the

respondent towards her maintenance. Subsequently,

respondent and petitioner have filed compromise

petition under which petitioner has agreed to pay

maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month from

01.05.2018 and in the said compromise petition,

petitioner has agreed to make the payment of college

fee of his daughter to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to

Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner has refused to pay the

college fee to the respondent but continued to pay the

maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent.

Respondent has filed an Execution Petition for

implementing the award passed by the Permanent Lok

Adalat with respect to the maintenance amount and

college fee of their daughter. The petitioner has

opposed the said application on the ground that the

award passed by the District Legal Service Authority is

not a decree. In order to consider the contention of

the petitioner, it is necessary to consider some of the

provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,

as per Section 22C (7) which reads as under:

Section 22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat-

(1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx

(4) xxxx (5) xxxx (6) xxxx (7) When a Permanent LokAdalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement or the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned.

8. In the present case, the parties have

already entered into compromise in the pre-litigation

and conciliation proceedings and the said settlement

has already attained finality. In order to consider

regarding the effect of the award passed by the

conciliation proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat,

it is necessary to consider Section 22E of the Act,

which deal with the nature and effect of the award

passed in the conciliation proceedings before the

Permanent Lok Adalat, which reads as under.

Section 22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.-

(1) Every award of the Permanent LokAdalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.

(2) Every award of the Permanent LokAdalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.

(3) The award made by the Permanent LokAdalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the PermanentLokAdalat.

(4) Every award made by the Permanent LokAdalat under this Act shall

be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.

(5) The Permanent LokAdalat may transmit any award made by it to a Civil Court having local Jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute tgeirder as if it were a decree made by that court.

9. As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 22E, the

award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the

Act in terms of settlement agreement shall be deemed

to be a decree of a Civil Court and also as per Sub-

Section 4 of Section 22E, the judgment debtor cannot

question the award passed by the Permanent Lok

Adalat and Sub-Section (5) of Section 22E clearly

states that the Court having local jurisdiction shall

execute the orders/award as if it were a decree made

by that Court.

10. In the present case, the petitioner has not

challenged the award passed by the Permanent Lok