Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Brijbihari Agrawal
2023 Latest Caselaw 11608 MP

                                                              1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                   ON THE 25 th OF JULY, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 26986 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL S/O NONE LAL @ NONI
                          AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          RETIRED   FROM      DEFENCE    R/O    VILLAGE
                          JASWANTPURA, TEHSIL AMANGANJ, DIST.PANNA (M.P)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR SAHU -ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    BRIJBIHARI AGRAWAL S/O LATE NONELAL @
                                NONI AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O
                                VILLAGE    JASWANTPURA,      AT PRESENT
                                RESUDEBT KISHUNGARH ROAD, AMANGANJ
                                AMANGANJ, DISTT- PANNA (M.P)

                          2.    AWADH BIHARI S/O LATE NONELAL @ NONI
                                AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                JASWANTPURA, TEH.AMANGANJ, DIST.PANNA
                                (M.P)

                          3.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                   THROUGH
                                COLLECTOR DISTRICT PANNA (M.P)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, SHRI
                          A.K JAIN- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, SHRI PUNIT SHROTI -
                          GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3/STATE )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

Pleadings are complete and parties have agreed to argue the matter finally, accordingly, it is finally heard.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 7/25/2023 4:58:13 PM

By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the order dated 08.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Lok Adalat in a pending civil suit i.e R.C.S No.21/2019. As per the order passed by the court below in a pending civil suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration and partition, an application has been moved for settlement between the parties and compromise took place between them and that application was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat finally considering the said application, passed the award on the basis of the terms of the lok adalat.

The petitioner has assailed the order saying that the said order has been obtained by fraud. The procedure which was to be followed before the Lok

Adalat has not been followed because such a compromise is otherwise not acceptable because in that compromise plaintiff/petitioner did not get anything, and it was in fact without any consideration goes in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. He further submits that before the Lok Adalat there was no identification and verification with regard to appearance of the plaintiff/petitioner, whereas the defendant's counsel has identified and verified the presence of defendant/respondent and as such that order is not sustainable. He relied upon several judgment of the Supreme Court saying that the order and decree obtained by fraud is in nullity void and ab initio.

Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 submits that there was no fraud played by the respondents/defendants because the application has been moved with the signatures of the parties containing signature of plaintiff even. He further submits that not only that but in the court plaintiff was present along with his counsel and order sheet reveals that not only the presence of plaintiff/petitioner but plaintiff/petitioner also has signed the said

Signature Not Verified order sheet. He submits that merely because the counsel of the Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 7/25/2023 4:58:13 PM

plaintiff/petitioner has not identified the presence of plaintiff does not mean that the order is illegal and that has been obtained by fraud.

Shri A.K Jain, Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 supported the submissions made by Shri Satyam Agrawal and further added that a civil suit challenging the said award passed by the Lok Adalat has been filed on the ground that the said order has been obtained by playing fraud and that fact has been suppressed in the petition, there is no pleading and disclosure in that regard and therefore, he submits that the order passed by the Lok Adalat is just and proper and passed after following due procedure of law, therefore, petition without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

Shri Punit Shroti -Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.3/State has no role to play but the State is a formal party of the case.

Considering the aforesaid and on perusal of record, putting a specific question by this Court to the counsel for petitioner that the application which has been moved in the pending civil suit and was referred before the Lok Adalat saying that the parties have entered into settlement contains the signature of plaintiff/petitioner or not, but that fact has not been denied by the counsel for petitioner and even in his petition there is no specific avernments made that the signature contained on the said application for compromise was not of the petitioner/plaintiff. Even in the order sheet of lok adalat contains signature of

petitioner/plaintiff even that fact has also not denied by him. Order sheet clearly reveals that the plaintiff/petitioner was present along with his counsel and then only award has been passed. Identification was not made by counsel of the petitioner/plaintiff that is merely procedural irregularity and that does not vitiate the order and under existing circumstance, it is not proper to say that the award Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 7/25/2023 4:58:13 PM

passed by the Lok Adalat is obtained by fraud. Considering the requirement of law and the procedure prescribed under section 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, I do not find that such procedure has not been followed. Even otherwise, when the award already under challenge before the civil court that fact has also not been disclosed by the petitioner/plaintiff, this petition is otherwise not maintainable.

Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits, prima facie I am of the opinion when civil suit is pending challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat entertaining writ petition simultaneously giving any finding on merit thereof would not be proper. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE tarun

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 7/25/2023 4:58:13 PM