Miss.Swati D/O Bhimappa ... vs Shri.Satish S/O Bhimappa ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2158 Kant

                            -1-
                                     WP No. 100756/2019


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT PETITION NO. 100756 OF 2019(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

    MISS SWATI D/O. BHIMAPPA BADLAMGOL
    AGE: MAJOR, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
    R/O. C/O. NAGAPPA B. KORAVI,
    H.NO. 14, DESUR CROSS, KAMAL NAGAR,
    DESUR VILLAGE OF BELAGAVI TALUKA & DISTRICT.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

    SHRI SATISH S/O. BHIMAPPA BADLAMGOL
    AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
    R/O. C/O. NAGAPPA B. KORAVI,
    H.NO. 14, DESUR CROSS, KAMAL NAGAR,
    DESUR VILLAGE OF BELAGAVI TALUKA & DISTRICT.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE NECESSARY
ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPROMISE MODIFIED
DECREE PASSED BY DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,
BELAGAVI, BEFORE LOK ADALAT AT BELAGAUM IN PLC NO.
937/2018 DATED 17.12.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.


       THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 06.04.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                           WP No. 100756/2019


                            ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the

order of Lok Adalat in modifying the compromise decree

passed in PLC No.937/2018.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Petitioner and respondent, who are siblings, to avoid

future complications and litigations filed Pre Litigation Case

before District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi in PLC

No.937/2018. The petitioner and respondent filed joint

compromise petition. In terms of joint compromise

petition, decree was passed on 27.11.2018.

3. Respondent however, subsequently sought

modification of the said compromise decree. The District

Legal Services Authority has entertained the application

filed by the respondent and modified the earlier decree.

In terms of modified decree, now respondent is entitled to

seek employment in HESCOM Department on

compassionate ground. In terms of earlier compromise

decree, it was respondent, who tendered no objection

WP No. 100756/2019

enabling the petitioner to seek appointment in HESCOM

Department on compassionate ground.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that Lok Adalat having recorded compromise and

passed decree in terms of joint compromise petition, had

no jurisdiction to entertain the application and thereafter

pass modified decree as per Annexure-D. He would

vehemently argue and contend that the District Legal

Services Authority has no jurisdiction either to review or

recall its order/award passed on joint compromise petition.

He would further point out that there are no provisions

under the Legal Services Authority Act, which empowers

Lok Adalath to review the compromise recorded in terms

of joint compromise petition. Therefore, he would contend

that if respondent feels aggrieved by compromise decree

passed in PLC No.937/2018, he has to avail remedy by

approaching this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

would vehemently argue and contend that the modified

WP No. 100756/2019

decree passed by Lok Adalat is in accordance with law.

Placing reliance on latest judgment tendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivasappa &

others Vs. M. Mallamma & Others1, he would contend

that there is no bar for Lok Adalat to review its order. He

has also placed reliance on judgment tendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Compack Enterprises

India Private Limited Vs. Beant Singh2. Referring to

the principles laid down in the said judgment, he would

contend that subsequent compromise is based on revised

consent of the petitioner and respondent. Therefore,

earlier compromise is rightly modified. He would further

contend that Lok Adalat has inherent power to rectify a

consent decree suffering from clerical or arithmetical

errors. Therefore, he would contend that the petitioner

having signed subsequent joint compromise petition and

having modified earlier compromise decree with the

consent of the petitioner, the petitioner is estopped from

questioning the modified decree before this Court.

AIR 2022 SC 2381

(2021) 3 SCC 702

WP No. 100756/2019

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further

placed reliance on the following judgments:

i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendrasingh3

ii) Dr. Smt. Shashi Pratik Vs. Charan Singh & Others4

iii) First Appeal No.65/2017, dated 28.03.2018 rendered by Allahabad High Court.

iv) Mogya Tempbraya Vasave Vs. Raya Hunya Vasave5

v) Bhargavi Constructions & Another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Others6

vi) Venture Global Engineering LLC Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd. & Another7

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent.

8. A short question that needs consideration at the

hands of this Court is as to whether District Legal Services

Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the application

seeking modification of compromise decree?

9. Lok Adalaths decide the matter on a

consent/compromise basis. Lok Adalat is a conciliator

AIR 2000 SC 1165

AIR 2009 ALL 109

WP No.6027/2022, BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(2018) 13 SCC 480

2018 (1) SCC 656

WP No. 100756/2019

body, which facilitates amicable settlement by way of

deliberations and negotiations. The endeavor of Lok Adalat

is only to see that disputes are narrowed down and if

parties arrive at amicable settlement, record such

compromise and pass award. Therefore, ordinary Lok

Adalat adopts only a conciliatory method and does not

decide a dispute, where it settles the dispute on a consent

of the parties and moment it passes the award, it becomes

functus officio.

10. There is difference between award passed by

ordinary Lok Adalath and award passed by Permanent Lok

Adalath adopting adjudicatory process. The manifest

difference in the provisions relating to awards of

Permanent Lok Adalat and ordinary Lok Adalat is not

accidental. Therefore, institution of Lok Adalats is at

present functioning as voluntary and conciliatory agency

and it is innovative mechanism for alternative dispute

resolution and the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based

on compromise and settlement between the parties. If the

parties do not arrive at any compromise or settlement,

WP No. 100756/2019

case is either returned to Court of law or parties are

advised to seek remedies in the Court of law.

11. Therefore, what can be inferred is that Lok

Adalats are not given power to decide the case on merits,

in the event parties failed to arrive at any compromise or

settlement.

12. Amendment was brought to the Legal Services

Authority Act, to set-up Permanent Lok Adalat, wherein it

is vested with jurisdiction to record settlement wherever

there is possibility of settlement and in the event, parties

to dispute fail to reach agreement, Permanent Lok Adalat

can decide the dispute on merits. Unlike Permanent Lok

Adalat, Lok Adalath conducted through District Legal

Services Authority has no jurisdiction and power of

adjudicatory process. Therefore, modification of the

compromise recoded in PLC No.937/2018 is wholly without

jurisdiction and the same is not at all sustainable. Once

the parties report settlement and award is passed by Lok

Adalath, it becomes functus officio and any aggrieved

party has to seek redressal of his grievance by

WP No. 100756/2019

approaching a writ Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If decree is passed based on joint

compromise petition, subsequent joint compromise

petition could not have been entertained.

13. I have given my anxious consideration to the

judgments cited by the learned counsel for the

respondent. This Court has absolutely no cavil to the

propositions cited by the learned counsel for the

respondent. The judgments cited are not applicable to the

present case on hand.

14. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) Writ Petition stands allowed.

b) Impugned modified decree dated 17.12.2018 passed in PLC No.937/2018 by Lok Adalath, Belagavi vide Annexure-D is set-aside.

SD/-

JUDGE JTR