Karnataka High Court
Shivayya Mahalingayya Sundolli vs Smt. Gangawwa W/O Mallayya Mathad on 5 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
WP No. 103518 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 103518 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAYYA MAHALINGAYYA SUNDOLLI,
AGE. 87 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DSIT. BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. BASAVVA MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. ANNAWWA
W/O MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI,
AGE. 92 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R 4. BASAYYA S/O MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI,
Location: HIGH AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSHA.A.NEELOPANT., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O MALLAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BORANATTI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
WP No. 103518 of 2021
2. BASAYYA SANGAYYA MATHAD,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BORANATTI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
2(A) SMT. PARAVVA W/O BASAYYA MATHAD,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. HOSATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2(B) SHIVAYYA S/O BASAYYA MATHAD,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. HOSATTI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2(C) SANGEETA D/O BASAYYA MATHAD,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HOSATTI, TQ:MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2(D) SAVITA D/O BASAYYA MATHAD,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. HOSATTI,
TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. GURUPADAYYA NINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
BORANATTI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. UMADEVI BALAYYA NIRWANI,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. SAVAKKA KALLAYYA KATTI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MANGALWARPETH, BANNATTI,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALAKOTE.
6. SHASHIKANTAYYA MAHALINGAYYA SUNADOLLI
@ SHASHIKANTAYYA GURULINGAYYA HIREMATH,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
WP No. 103518 of 2021
AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN.T.LIMBIKAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2(A),
R3 & R5;
R2(B-D) ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R2(A);
R4 & 6-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Shriharsh A.Neelopant., counsel for the petitioners
and Sri.Chetan T.Limbikai., counsel for respondents 1, 2(A), 3
& 5 have appeared in person.
Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on
24.09.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondents 4 & 6 are served and unrepresented. Respondents
4 & 6 have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor
conducted the case as a party in person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of
Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated:07.02.2004
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
passed by the Judicial Conciliator/Taluka Legal Services
Authority Gokak in O.S. No.161/1988 vide Annexure-A.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial
Court.
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the file of the Principal
Munsif, Gokak in O.S.No.161/1988 seeking the relief for
declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The Trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.1991 decreed the
suit. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court in R.A.
No.59/1991. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree
dated 23.09.1992 set aside the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court. The
remand order was questioned before this Court by filing a
Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The second appeal was
dismissed. After remand, counsel who represented the plaintiff
filed a memo stating that there was a settlement between the
parties to the lis; the plaintiff is not interested in proceeding
with the suit and that he would withdraw the suit. The matter
was referred to the Lok Adalat. Taking note of the memo that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
was filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs, the Lok Adalat vide
order dated 07.02.2004, disposed of the suit as compromised.
Under these circumstances, the captioned writ petition is filed
on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ
petition.
5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
Sri.Shirharsh A.Neelopant., counsel for the petitioners in
presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the
plaintiffs have not received any amount and they have not
signed any compromise petition. Counsel submitted that the
plaintiffs were not aware of the memo that was filed by their
counsel. It is also contended that they have not given any
instructions to their Advocate to file the memo. He argued by
saying that the proceedings before the Lok Adalath are contrary
to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Counsel, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Lok
Adalat may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed.
Sri.Chetan T.Limbikai., counsel for respondents 1, 2(A), 3
and 5 submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not
require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow
compass and relates to the order passed by Lok Adalat. In the
present case, the counsel who represented the plaintiffs filed a
memo stating that the matter is compromised and the plaintiffs
are not interested in prosecuting the suit. The memo is
furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked
as Annexure-E. A perusal of the same would reflect that a
counsel by the name Sri.M.G.Solapuramata., has signed the
memo and it is dated 07.02.2004. The contents of the memo
read as under:
"ªÉÄêÉÆ
EzÀg°
À è ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ §gÀPÉÆAqÀ «£ÀAw ªÉÄêÉÆ K£ÉAzÀgÉ :-
ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ¥Àwæ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ C¥À¸ÁvÀ DV 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ
vÉUz
É ÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ F PÁgÀt ¸Àzj
À zÁªÁªÀ£ÀÄß E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÄAzÉ £Àr¸ÀĪÀ¢¯Áè
DzÀÝjAzÁ ¸Àzj É ÀÄ ºÁPÀ¨ÃÉ PÁV «£ÀAw ªÉÄêÉÆ"
À zÁªÁªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUz
8. It is significant to note that the parties to the lis
have not signed the memo and the order sheet. The order of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
the Lok Adalat is also furnished along with the writ petition and
the same is marked at Annexure-A. The Lok Adalat on
07.02.2004 disposed of the suit as compromised based on the
memo that was filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs. A perusal
of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes
it very clear that the presence of the parties and principles of
natural justice must be adhered to. Section 20 contains as
many as 7 sub-clauses. In my view, the Presiding Officer and
the Conciliator have not adhered to Section 20 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987. Furthermore, there is no
compromise petition and the parties have not signed the
memo. Hence, the Lok Adalat could not have proceeded with
the matter. Hence, the order cannot be sustained. Therefore, it
is required to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated
07.02.2004 passed by the Judicial Conciliator/ Taluka Legal
Services Authority Gokak in O.S. No.161/1988 vide Annexure-
A is quashed.
10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4268
11. Because of the quashing of the order passed by Lok
Adalat, the suit is restored to the original file. Since the parties
are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed
to appear before the Trial Court on 07.04.2025.
Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim
order if any granted by this Court stands discharged.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP,RH
