Karnataka High Court

Kamanna S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi vs Bhimappa S/O. Siddappa Tamadaddi on 14 June, 2022

Bench: R.Devdas

                                                   -1-




                                                              CRP No. 100008 of 2022


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                                 BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100008 OF 2022 (-)
                      BETWEEN:

                      KAMANNA S/O. SIDDAPPA TAMADADDI
                      AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                      NOW PRESENTLY R/O. HARUGERI-591220
                      TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

                                                                        ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.     BHIMAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA TAMADADDI
                             AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O. HARUGERI-591220
                             TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

                      2.     SMT.ANJANA W/O. KALLAPPA BANSHI
                             AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                             R/O. BEKKERI-591317
        Digitally
        signed by J
                             TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI
        MAMATHA
J       Location:
MAMATHA Dharwad
        Date:


                      3.     SMT.SHILPA W/O SURESH PUJARI
        2022.06.18
        11:46:08
        +0530




                             AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                             R/O. AINAPUR-591303
                             TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI

                      4.     SMT.ANITA W/O ANIL BELAGALI
                             AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                             R/O. HIDKAL-591122
                             TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI
                               -2-




                                       CRP No. 100008 of 2022


5.   SMT.SONAWWA W/O SIDDAPPA TAMADADDI
     AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. HARUGERI-591220
     TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

6.   SMT.YALLAWWA W/O SHIVAJI BARAGALI
     AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. NIDAGUNDI-591317
     TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

7.   SMT.SHALA W/O SATISH ITAGANNAVAR
     AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. MUDHOL-587313
     TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE

8.   SMT.SUJATA W/O ANAND HANDIGUND
     AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. AINAPUR-591303
     TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI

9.   SMT.INDRAWWA W/O SHIDDAPPA TAMADADDI
     AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. HARUGERI-591220
     TQ. RAUBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI

                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5
NOTICE TO R7 & R9 DISPENSED WITH,
R6 AND R8 ARE SERVED)

       THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.535/2017 ON I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE
11(d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION
FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC
SEEKING REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
     THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                     -3-




                                               CRP No. 100008 of 2022


                               ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.535/2017 is

before this court aggrieved by the impugned order dated

22.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.4 whereby the trial court

dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant

No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

respondents have filed O.S.No.535/2017 for the following

relief:

"A. A decree for reopening of partition obtained by playing fraud on the court in O.S.No.891/2013 dated 07.09.2013 may be reopened and entire properties may be allotted to the share of plaintiffs. Alternatively 1/6th share each to the plaintiffs be awarded by reopening partition obtained by practicing fraud in O.S.No.891/2013 dated 07.09.2013 with separate possession thereof;

B. Any other reliefs deem fit by this Hon'ble Court be granted to the plaintiffs;

C. Costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs;

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

D. A decree may be drawn accordingly."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.4 under Order VII

Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the

plaint on the ground that it is barred by law and not

maintainable under the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of

the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The trial court

rejected the said application while holding that the

plaintiffs have sought for reopening the partition and not

for setting aside the award of Lok Adalath. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention

of this court to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Bharvagi Construction and Another V.

Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Others (AIR 2017

SC 4428) and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court

noticed its earlier decision in the case of State of Punjab

Vs Jalour Singh and Others (AIR 2008 SC 1209) and

held that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of

mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 to 5 seeks to support the impugned order.

5. Having gone through the decision referred in

Bharvagi Construction (supra) this court finds that Their

Lordships extracted paragraph 12 of the judgment in

State of Punjab (supra) as follows:

"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits."

6. Consequently, Their Lordships have held that, it

is clear pronouncement of the law by the Apex Court that

the only remedy available to the aggrieved person who

admits that he is signatory to the terms of settlement,

based on which the award is made by the Lok Adalath, is

to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the

Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the

award passed by the Lok Adalath.

7. It was also argued before the Hon'ble Apex

Court that since the words employed in clause (d) of Rule

11 of Order VII is "barred by any law" and expression

"law" will not include the "judicial decisions". Such

contention was considered and negatived by the Hon'ble

Apex Court. It was held that it cannot be said that the

term "barred by any law" occurring in clause (d) of Rule

11 of Order VII of the Code, ought to be read to mean

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

only the law codified in a legislative enactment and not the

law laid down by the courts in judicial precedents.

8. In the opinion of the trial court that the plaintiffs

have not sought for setting aside the award of the Lok

Adalath is also not correct. It is clear from the prayer

made in the plaint that the plaintiffs have sought for a

decree for re-opening of partition obtained by playing

fraud on the court in O.S.No.891/2013. This is nothing

but a challenge raised to the award of the Lok Adalath by

virtue of which O.S.No.891/2013 was disposed of. The

respondents are seeking the same relief indirectly, what

was not permitted directly.

9. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the

Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibab on I.A.No.4 in

O.S.No.535/2017 requires to be quashed and set aside.

What follows is that I.A.No.4 filed at the hands of the

petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w

Section 151 of CPC is required to be allowed while

CRP No. 100008 of 2022

rejecting the plaint. Therefore, this court proceeds to pass

the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag in O.S.No.535/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.535/2017 is accordingly allowed and the plaint stands rejected.

iv) Liberty is reserved to the respondents/plaintiffs to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the award dated 07.09.2013 passed by the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.891/2013.