Karnataka High Court
Smt. Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa ... vs Sri. Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa ... on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 103766 of 2018
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 103766 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RENUKA W/O ANAND @ ANANTSA BAKALE
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: C/O. RATAN MAHESH GAWLI,
ZAVERI HOUSE, H.NO.2/1,
GROUND FLOOR, BATLIWALA ROAD, PAREL,
MUMBAI-400012.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMANAND S/O RAMKRISHNASA BASAWA
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS,
R/O: CELL WARD 940,
K.T.STREET, MANDI POLICE STATION AREA,
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570001.
2. GAJANAN S/O BHOJANSA HABIB
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BEHIND SHAKTI TEMPLE,
HEMANTH NAGAR,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
WP No. 103766 of 2018
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE
DECREE DATED 26.07.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI (LOK ADALAT) IN O.S.NO.246/2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-"A" AND THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED:26.07.2014
VIDE ANNEXURE-"E" AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE O.S.NO.
246/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
HUBBALLI FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following relief:
TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 26.07.2014
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
HUBBALLI (LOK ADALAT) IN O.S.NO.246/2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-"A" AND THE COMPROMISE PETITION
DATED:26.07.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-"E" AND
CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE O.S.NO. 246/2014 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI FOR FRESH
CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a compromise
petition was entered into in O.S. No.246/2014
pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
at Hubballi in the Lok-Adalat proceedings by a person
claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the
WP No. 103766 of 2018
petitioner and as such the petitioner's interest in the
suit schedule property therein has been
compromised without the knowledge of the petitioner
and therefore a fraud has been committed on the
petitioner by resorting to an abuse of the process of
the Court and filing of a compromise petition in the
Lok-Adalat.
3. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the suit in O.S. No.246/2014
had been filed by respondent No.2 herein against the
petitioner represented by the power of attorney
holder seeking for specific performance of an alleged
agreement of sale dated 25.04.2014 which is alleged
to have been executed by the alleged power of
attorney holder of the petitioner.
4. In the said suit upon notice being ordered without
service of notice on the petitioner, respondent No.1
who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the
petitioner had entered appearance and filed a
WP No. 103766 of 2018
compromise petition even before return of notice.
The compromise petition having been filed before the
Court, the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalat and
in that Lok-Adalat a compromise was recorded by the
conciliators and compromise decree was directed to
be passed.
5. Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar submits that once earlier a
power of attorney which had been issued in favour of
the father of respondent No.1 as regards the said
properties had been cancelled by a public notice
dated 15.12.2012 published in the newspaper
Sanjevani on 16th December, 2012.
6. The petitioner not having executed any power of
attorney in favour of respondent No.1, the power of
attorney claimed by respondent No.1 is fabricated
one and as such neither the agreement of sale could
be executed by respondent No.1 in favour of
respondent No.2 nor could a compromise be entered
into by the respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 for
WP No. 103766 of 2018
the Lok-Adalat to record. In the above background,
he submits that the petition needs to be allowed and
the compromise recorded by the Lok-Adalat be set
aside as also the compromise decree drawn up in
pursuance thereto.
7. Per contra, Sri.Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the respondents would submit
that respondent No.1 is the power of attorney holder
of the petitioner and respondent No.1 has entered
into a compromise with the knowledge and consent
of the petitioner with respondent No.2. The
compromise having been filed before the Court and
the Court having forwarded the matter to the Lok-
Adalat the compromise is one which is filed before
the Court and as such the present petition is not
maintainable since the trial Court having taken the
compromise on record, only a suit challenging the
compromise is maintainable.
WP No. 103766 of 2018
8. He further submits that the alleged fabricated power
of attorney has not been produced by the petitioner.
Therefore the contention of the petitioner that there
is fabrication of the power of attorney is not
sustainable without production of such power of
attorney. There is gross delay by the petitioner in
challenging the compromise by filing of the above
petition inasmuch as the compromise was entered
into in the year 2014 and the present writ petition
has been filed in the year 2018 and as such the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Further he submits that respondent No.2 has acted
on the compromise and entered into further
transaction which would get upset if this Court were
to intervene in the matter and set aside the
compromise.
10. Heard Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Padmanabha Mahale, learned
WP No. 103766 of 2018
Senior counsel for Sri.Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel
for the respondents. Perused papers.
11. The suit in O.S. No.246/2014 had been filed for
specific performance of an agreement of sale dated
25.04.2014 said to have been executed by power of
attorney holder of the petitioner herein namely,
respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. The
cause title of the said suit leads to an interesting
reading inasmuch as the defendant though is named
as Smt.Renuka (petitioner herein) her address is
shown as resident of Keshwapur and is represented
by her GPA holder respondent No.1 with the address
of respondent No.1 shown in the cause title. In the
cause title, the address of the petitioner has not been
shown except for her being named.
12. Notice having been ordered on the defendant the
power of attorney holder enters appearance for the
defendant therein and enters into a compromise. It
fails to reason as to how a party to a proceeding
WP No. 103766 of 2018
namely a defendant can be said to be represented by
power of attorney when a person is arrayed as a
party defendant, it is for the said person who is
arrayed as a defendant to appoint a power of
attorney or not. The plaintiff in a suit cannot in my
considered opinion array a defendant to be
represented by power of attorney showing the
address of the said power of attorney without even
showing the address of the defendant.
13. The facts of this case are even more peculiar
inasmuch as the suit was filed for specific
performance of an agreement dated 25.04.2014
which is stated to be executed by the very same
power of attorney shown in the cause title. Thus,
admittedly the defendant therein has not executed
any agreement but the agreement was executed by a
person claiming to be power of attorney of the
defendant.
WP No. 103766 of 2018
14. The proceedings take curious turn by the power of
attorney appearing in the proceedings and filing a
compromise petition immediately after issuance of
notice and the said compromise is referred to a Lok-
Adalat.
15. It is further surprising that the very same counsel
appears in these proceedings for both the
respondents i.e. the plaintiff in O.S. No.246/2014 as
also the power of attorney representing the
defendant in O.S. No.246/2014. This in no uncertain
terms in my considered opinion establishes the
collusion between power of attorney and plaintiff in
O.S. No.246/2014.
16. The net result of the entire proceedings and
procedure followed is that the plaintiff who was not
aware of the said proceedings, a compromise decree
has been passed against the petitioner who though
arrayed as a party to the preceding was never served
- 10 -
WP No. 103766 of 2018
with the notice nor did the defendant contest the said
the proceedings.
17. Apart there from there is a procedural irregularity in
inasmuch as the compromise petition was filed
before the Court and thereafter the matter referred
to Lok-Adalat for recordal of the compromise. This
Court in Smt.Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and
Others [ILR 2014 KAR 2051] has severely
deprecated the said practice. Para 11 of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"11. I really wonder, whether the learned Judge who has
entertained this matter was aware of the elementary aspects
of judicial functioning and the Lok Adalath. A common order-
sheet cannot be maintained by the Court as well as the Lok
Adalath. A Court cannot be converted into a Lok Adalath. In
the order-sheet maintained by the Court, a portion of the
proceedings is referable to the Court proceedings and another
portion refers to the proceedings of the Lok Adalath. The
Conciliator has no place inside the Court. The very object of
accepting this Lok Adalath as an alternative mode of
resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not need
adjudication. The matter which could be resolved by
persuasion, negotiation and understanding should be taken
out of adjudication process and should be resolved by means
of Lok Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are disposed of
expeditiously and the Courts will be saving the time of
adjudicatory process, and they can utilize that time which is
saved, in adjudicating the cases. If on the day the plaint is
presented, the parties are also present before the Court, they
are ready with the compromise petition and when they are
- 11 -
WP No. 103766 of 2018
filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, when they
are admitting the terms of the compromise and execution of
the terms and condition, then the Court before which it is
presented, is the competent Court to record the compromise
and dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. The
question of referring the said dispute to the Lok Adalath
would not arise. If it is referred, it is a farce. If this is
accepted and encouraged, both the judicial system and this
alternative dispute resolution mechanism gets a bad name
and would be subjected to redicule in the eyes of public. All
persons who are indulging in this process would be doing
great injustice and dis-service to the judicial system. They are
not conscious of their action and its repercussions and the
image of the Judiciary, which would create in the mind of the
public. That is not the object with which neither Legal
Services Authority Act of 1987 is passed by the Parliament
providing for the institution of Lok Adalath nor Section 89 was
introduced by the Parliament amending CPC. The essence of
these provisions is neither understood by the learned Judge
nor by the learned Counsels who are appearing for the
parties."
18. This Court has held that such a practice of recording
compromise before the Court and thereafter referring
to Lok-Adalat is not contemplated in the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 and such compromise
if recorded before the Lok-Adalat is required to be
set aside.
19. Applying the Ruling to the present case as also for
the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion
that the petition is required to be allowed.
- 12 -
WP No. 103766 of 2018
20. This Court has also been coming across several
matters relating to such compromise before the Lok-
Adalat which are challenged by way of writ petitions.
Hence, I also deem it fit to issue general directions in
respect of such matters which are referred to Lok-
Adalat and compromise recorded as under:
(i) When a compromise is filed before the Court in
terms of the decision in Smt.Akkubai vs. Shri
Venkatrao and Others [ILR 2014 KAR 2051]
(supra) it is for the Court to record the
compromise and not refer the matter to the Lok-
Adalat.
(ii) It is only if there is no settlement arrived at
before the Court and the parties request for the
matter to be referred to Lok-Adalat to enable a
settlement then in such event the parties are to
be referred to the Lok-Adalat and in the event of
a compromise being arrived at before the Lok-
- 13 -
WP No. 103766 of 2018
Adalat, the same could be recorded by the lok-
Adalat.
(iii) When the matter is referred to Lok-Adalat,
separate order sheets would have to be opened
and maintained by the said Lok-Adalat and the
order sheet of the Court in the suit cannot be
used by the Lok-Adalat.
(iv) The trial Court and or the Lok-Adalat while
recording compromise is required to ascertain if
the parties are present personally as also to
ascertain and verify their identities by production
of suitable documentary proof.
(v) In the event of a power of attorney appearing, it
would be the bounden duty of the Court or the
Lok-Adalat to ascertain if the concerned party has
been served with notice.
(vi) The Court as also the Lok-Adalat would always
have to be suspicious if the party were to enter
- 14 -
WP No. 103766 of 2018
appearance even before service of notice which is
a red flag that there is something that is fishy in
the matter.
(vii) When recording a compromise being entered
into by a power of attorney, the original of the
power of attorney is required to be examined by
the Court and the Lok-Adalat and necessary
endorsement made in the order to that effect and
the original power of attorney returned to the
parties.
(viii) As far as possible the trial Court and or the Lok-
Adalat to secure the presence of the party and
obtain signature of such party rather than the
power of attorney.
(ix) The Trial Courts shall ensure that proper and
acceptable proof of identity of the parties to
proceedings as mandated by the Government for
various purposes (such as Aadhar Card, Driving
- 15 -
WP No. 103766 of 2018
Licence, Passport Copy, Election Identity card,
etc.,) are obtained as a matter of rule.
21. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued. The compromise decree
dated 26.07.2014 in O.S. No.246/2014 as
recorded by the Lok-Adalat is quashed. O.S.
No.246/2014 is restored to the file.
iii. The petitioner is at liberty to contest the said
suit before the trial Court.
iv. All issues are left open including the aspect of
whether power of attorney being genuine or
otherwise.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
