Nirakar Dash And Another vs Jayanta Kumar Dash
2022 Latest Caselaw 3625 Ori

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.14713 Of 2022
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        Nirakar Dash and another               ....           Petitioners

                                      Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate

                                   -versus-

        Jayanta Kumar Dash                     ....       Opposite Party

                                   Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra, Advocate

                 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order                             ORDER
No.                              01.08.2022
  4.     1.    Ms. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners

and submits, the suit of her clients was decreed on compromise

behind their back. Her clients did not appear before the Lok Adalat

and hence, there should be interference to strike down order dated 17th

April, 2011 decreeing in the suit in terms of alleged compromise.

2. She submits further, recently private opposite party

commenced construction on her clients' plot. Her clients knew status

quo order in the suit was continuing. On instructing steps be taken in

the suit, they found the suit has been decreed, hence, they are before

the High Court. She relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in

Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy reported

in (2018) 13 SCC 480 to submit, the writ petition is maintainable

// 2 //

against private opposite party since, her clients' grievance is against

the Lok Adalat.

3. Petitioners have annexed order sheet in the suit. It appears

therefrom, the plaint was presented on 24th August, 2009. On 7th

January, 2010 written statement was filed and 21st January, 2010

fixed for settlement for issue. Issues were settled and the suit directed

to be proceeded with for trial. Several adjournments were thereafter

granted and on 23rd August, 2010 plaintiff sought further

adjournment, praying for time to get ready for hearing of the suit.

Then, on 28th September, 2010, plaintiff sought amendment of the

suit, which was allowed but on omission to put in cost for carrying

out the amendment, order directing amendment was recalled by order

no.31 dated 3rd March, 2021. The suit was directed to be put up for

hearing with both sides directed to come ready.

4. Orders no.32 dated 7th March, 2011 to impugned order dated

17th April, 2011 are extracted from the order sheet and reproduced

below.

"Order No.32, dtd 07.03.2011 Both plaintiffs and defendant jointly filed a compromise petition being identified by both sides advocates. Copy of voter Id are filed. Put up the case record on 16.3.11 with office note.

// 3 //

Sd/-

C.J.S. D. Anandapur

"Order No.33, dtd 16.03.2011 Advocates from both sides are present. Seen office note. Put up on 24.3.11 for consideration of compromise petition when parties to remain present physically.

Sd/-

C.J.S. D. Anandapur

"Order No.34, dtd 23.03.2011 Advocates from both sides are present. Both plaintiffs and defendants are present and filed affidavit as per office note. Put up on 4.4.11 for perusal of compromise petition and order.

Sd/-

C.J.S. D. Anandapur "Order No.35, dtd 04.04.2011 Advocates for defendants is present. Put up the case record in Mega Lok Adalat on 17.4.11 for consideration of the compromise petition. When parties to remain present asked both the counsels to instruct parties to come in Lok Adalat.

Sd/-

C.J.S. D. Anandapur "Order dtd 17.04.2011 The record is put up before the Lok Adalat for

// 4 //

consideration of the compromise petition filed on 7.3.2011. Both the parties are present and file separate Haziras.

Heard both the sides. Perused the compromise petition and the pleadings. Contents of the compromise petition is read over correct and they agree to the terms and condition of the compromise. As the parties have amicably settled their disputes, the petition to compromise is allowed. Hence the suit is decreed in terms of compromise. The compromise petition be made part of the decree parties to bear their own cost."

5. The record in order sheet regarding filing of compromise

petition, presence of both parties on several dates, leading to posting

the suit to be decreed on compromise by the Lok Adalat, appears to

have happened to the knowledge of petitioners. This inference is

supported by petitioners' not having taken any step whatsoever in the

suit thereafter, till presenting this writ petition on 9th June, 2022.

Assuming petitioners had not joined in the compromise, they

thereafter did not enquire about their suit. Nothing was done by

petitioners. Court is convinced they were aware that the suit stood

decreed on compromise.

6. The writ petition is without merit. It is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks

// 5 //