Karnataka High Court

Sri M Murthy vs Barakathulla H S on 30 July, 2024

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                           -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30079
                                                    WP No. 12709 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                        BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                      WRIT PETITION NO.12709 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
                BETWEEN:

                SRI M MURTHY
                S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
                AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                R/AT HOUSE NO.6 NEAR GURUKUL SCHOOL,
                J P NAGAR 9TH PHAS,E 7TH BLOCK,
                BEHIND NANDI GURDON APARTMENT,
                ALAHALLI VILLAGE, ANJANAPURA POST
                UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
                BENGALURU 560062
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE., SR. COUNSEL FOR
                    SRI. MEGALAMANE PRABHU., ADVOCATE)
                AND:

Digitally signed
by JUANITA       1.   BARAKATHULLA H S
THEJESWINI            S/O LATE SIGBATHULLA,
Location: HIGH        AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             R/AT MUSLIM BLOCK NEAR MASJID CIRCLE,
                      HAROHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI,
                      HAROHALLI TALUK
                      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112

                2.    SMT KHURSHIDA BANU
                      W/O RAHMATH,
                      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                      R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
                      HAROHALLI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK
                             -2-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC:30079
                                  WP No. 12709 of 2024




     RAMANAGARA DITRICT 562112

3.   SMT KEMPAMMA
     W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

4.   SRI BASAVAIAH C K
     S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

5.   SMT SUKANYA M
     W/O BASAVAIAH C K,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

6.   SRI RAVINDRA C K
     S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

7.   SMT RAMYA H K
     W/O RAVINDRA C K,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE
     R/AT CHIKKASADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
     MARALAVADI HOBLI, HOROHALLI TALUK
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
    R3 TO R7 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AWARD DATED
15/12/2023 BEFORE LOK-ADALAT PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA IN OS NO. 60/2023
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED
09/12/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE
O.S. NO.60/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
                                  -3-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:30079
                                            WP No. 12709 of 2024




AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON
MERITS AND ETC. .

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

                          ORAL ORDER

The petitioner who had filed an impleading

application in I.A.No.II before the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Kanakapura in O.S.No.60/2023 is before this Court

aggrieved of the fraudulent action on the part of the

respondents who were the plaintiffs as well as the

defendants in the suit in advancing the case and ensuring

that the matter is placed before the Lok Adalath and an

award is obtained, thereby defrauding the petitioner.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.P.Hegde, appearing

on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had

entered into an agreement with late Sri Kempegowda and

his sons who are defendants No.2 to 4 in the suit, for

purchasing 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.721/2 old

Sy.No.721 situated at Harohalli Village, Kanakapura,

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

Ramanagara District. The agreement was entered into on

25.09.2014 and the sale consideration was agreed at

Rs.8,00,000/-. The petitioner had paid a sum of

Rs.5,30,000/- under the agreement and the petitioner was

waiting for the owners of the property to secure a 11E

sketch to enable registration of the sale deed. However,

the owners of the property appeared to have colluded with

respondents No.1 and 2 herein and respondents No.1 and

2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.60/2023 against the widow

of Sri Kempegowda and the children of Sri Kempegowda

seeking specific performance of the contract, in terms of

the agreement of sale dated 29.09.2020. When the

petitioner came to know of such fraudulent action on the

part of the respondents herein, the petitioner got issued a

legal notice dated 26.07.2023 to the respondents herein.

The petitioner called upon the respondents to execute the

sale deed within a period of 15 days failing which the

petitioner would take legal steps to enforce the specific

performance of the agreement.

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite such

a legal notice being issued, respondents No.1 and 2 filed

O.S.No.60/2023 on 18.01.2023. The petitioner herein

filed I.A.No.II seeking impleadment in the suit on

08.11.2023. The matter was adjourned to 31.01.2024.

However, without intimation to the petitioner, the parties

before the Court got the matter advanced, filed a

compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code

of Civil Procedure and an application under Order VI Rule

17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint regarding

description of the suit schedule property. The application

for amendment was allowed by the Court on 09.12.2023

and on the same day, the matter was referred to Lok

Adalath and in the order sheet of the Court, it is recorded

on 09.12.2023 that negotiations were held, parties have

agreed to settle the case and have voluntarily filed

compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. In

the order sheet of the Court, the Judicial Conciliator and

the Advocate Conciliator have recorded satisfaction that

parties have filed compromise petition voluntarily and

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

knowing the consequences. Accordingly, the Lok Adalath

accepted the terms of the compromise petition and passed

an award in terms of the compromise petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has held in the case of Smt.Renuka

Vs. Sri Ramanand and Another in

W.P.No.103766/2018 dated 31.03.2022 that if a

compromise petition is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of

the CPC before the Court, it is for the Court to record the

compromise and the matter cannot be referred to Lok

Adalath. Various directions have been issued by the co-

ordinate Bench having noticed that several such

complaints have been received regarding the procedural

irregularity. The Court noticed the earlier decision in the

case of Smt.Akkubai Vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others

reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2051 that 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. The Conciliator has no place inside the Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

The very object of accepting the 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.

5. In a recent decision, in the case of Smt.Pooja

and Sri Siddanna and Others in W.P.No.205205/2019

dated 18.03.2024, similar observations have been made

and it has been held that it is a settled principle of law that

the petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is to be

accepted by the Court after entering satisfaction. Such a

power is not available to the conciliators who preside over

the Lok Adalath.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that

subsequent to the impugned award being passed, the

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

petitioner has also filed O.S.No.58/2024 seeking specific

performance of the contract.

submits that the said respondents have paid a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- to respondents No.3 to 7 in terms of the

compromise petition and therefore, this Court should not

accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that

the respondents have acted fraudulently only to defraud

the petitioner herein. Learned Counsel submits that if it

was true that the parties before the Court were trying to

defraud the petitioner, then there was no need for the

plaintiffs to have parted with a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-

under the compromise decree. All payments are made

through cheques.

8. Though notice is served on respondents No.3 to 7,

they have remained unrepresented.

9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents No.1

and 2 and having perused the petition papers, this Court

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

finds that although the position of law as reiterated in the

judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel would

clearly postulate that if a compromise petition is filed

under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC before the Court, the

same cannot be considered in a Lok Adalath.

Nevertheless, this Court also has to take into consideration

the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 contend that they

have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondents No.3 to

7 in terms of the compromise petition and the award is

passed by the Lok Adalath. Respondents No.3 to 7 cannot

be permitted to take advantage of the situation. In that

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that although the impugned award passed by the Lok

Adalath is required to be set aside, nevertheless, the Trial

Court will have to consider the matter on merits while

taking into consideration the fact that respondents No.1

and 2 have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondents

No.3 to 7. On the other hand, the petitioner appears to

have paid a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- to respondents No.3 to

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

7 in the year 2014, as could be found in the legal notice

issued by the petitioner.

10. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned award dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Lok Adalath, in O.S.No.60/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) The matter stands remitted back to the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kanakapura, while re-

opening the suit in O.S.No.60/2023.

iv) The learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, shall consider the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in I.A.No.II on its merits.

v) The learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura is directed to hear O.S.No.60/2023 along with O.S.No.58/2024 which is filed by the petitioner herein in respect of the same suit schedule property.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30079

All contentions are left open to be urged by the

parties before the Civil Court. Any remarks passed by this

Court during the course of this order shall not prejudice

the case of any of the parties before the Civil Court.

Registry is directed to bring to the notice of the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and all the

District Legal Services Authorities the orders passed by

this Court in W.P.No.103766/2018 dated 31.03.2022 at

Dharwad Bench. The District Legal Services Authorities

shall be apprised of the directions issued in the said case,