Orissa High Court
Banita Rout And Others vs Nabaghana Swain And Others on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9409 of 2022
(Through Hybrid mode)
Banita Rout and others .... Petitioners
-versus-
Nabaghana Swain and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Mr. J. Mohapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUDGMENT
11.10.2022
1. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners and submits, his clients are the married daughters,
deliberately left out from a purported compromise petition filed
in the proceeding between the other co-sharers, who had
instituted the proceeding behind back of his clients, in the
Continuous and Permanent Lok Adalat (CPLA). He submits,
there be direction upon the CPLA to add his clients as parties
and thereupon facilitate settlement.
2. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of
opposite party nos. 1, 3, 10, 11, 12 and 14 and submits, the case
was filed as a pre-litigation case under Permanent and
Continuous Lok Adalat with Conciliation and Counseling
Centre Scheme, 2000. He points out from impugned order
dated 14th July, 2006 that the case was registered and numbered
as PL Case no.23 of 2006. PL, for pre-litigation. He submits,
clause-3 of the scheme says, in event of settlement and
disposal, it shall amount to a decree in accordance with
provisions in section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987. Parties to the PL case had duly arrived at a settlement and
impugned order was made recording the disposal, thereby
amounting to a deemed decree. In any event petitioners have
moved Court on gross delay. There can be no interference.
3. On query from Court Mr. Nayak submits, the scheme
operates in its field on facilitating conciliation, settlement and
disposal. He reiterates, on disposal the order is deemed to be a
decree. In the circumstances, the scheme does not confine
jurisdiction of the CPLA to clause (b) under section 22A. Mr.
Mohapatra in reply submits, subject matter of a partition suit is
not covered under clause (b) in section 22A.
4. Section 28 provides for power of State Government to
make rules. Such power has been mandated to carry out
provisions of the Act. In the circumstances contention raised on
behalf of opposite parties that the scheme is not confined to
jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalats provided by clause (b)
under section 22A, cannot be accepted. It is no matter that
petitioners have come belatedly against impugned order passed
in year 2006. There is presumption that petitioners were
unaware since, they were not made parties to the settlement
through the CPLA, resulting in disposal by impugned order.
5. Impugned order is set aside and quashed.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Sks
