Man Mohan Dammani And Sons (Huf) vs Ashok Kumar Sadh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9853 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12633/2019

Man Mohan Dammani And Sons (Huf), Karta Shri Rajesh Dammani S/o Late Shri Man Mohan Dammani , Aged 55 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 230, A.j.c. Boss Road, Kolkata (W.b.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ashok Kumar Sadh S/o Late Shri Deepadas Sadh, By Caste Sadh, R/o Sai Baba Bhawan, Near Soorsagar, Opp. Mataji Temple, Bikaner.

2. Smt. Vimala Devi Tawari W/o Late Shri Chottulal Tawari, By Caste Tawari, R/o O/s Jassusar Gate, Bikaner/sukhsagar Apartment, Gajner Road, Behind Kothari Hospital, Bikaner.

3. Shiv Tawari S/o Late Shri Chottulal Tawari, By Caste Tawari, R/o O/s Jassusar Gate, Bikaner/sukhsagar Apartment, Gajner Road, Behind Kothari Hospital, Bikaner.

4. Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. R.K. Rathi
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. R.S. Choudhary
                                 Mr. J.K. Bhaiya



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                     Order

27/07/2022

The matter comes up for consideration of the application

(Inward No.1/22) preferred on behalf of the petitioner with a

prayer to allow him to produce certain documents on record i.e.

order sheets of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the PLA') pertaining to the Case No.73/2017, in

(2 of 4) [CW-12633/2019]

which, award has been passed by the PLA on 27.11.2018, which is

under challenge in this petition.

It is noticed that the application under Section 22 of the

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 has been filed on behalf of the

respondent - Ashok Kumar alleging that the petitioner and the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have agreed to sell and hand over a flat

measuring about 1160 Sq. Ft. in Sukh Sagar Apartment, Bikaner

with all amenities, however, despite making full payment, the

petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to deliver the

possession of the flat in question in the said apartment as per the

agreed terms.

The PLA on failure of the conciliation proceedings has

adjudicated the dispute and passed the award dated 27.11.2018.

It is also to be noticed that against aforesaid award, the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have preferred SB Civil Writ Petition

No.279/2019 - Smt. Vimala Devi Tawari & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar

Sadh & Ors., which came to be dismissed by this Court vide

judgment dated 16.05.2019. Against the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have preferred D.B.

Spl. Appeal Writ No.737/2019, which also came to be dismissed as

not maintainable by the Division Bench of this Court vide order

dated 12.04.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

PLA before passing the award has not conducted any conciliation

proceedings, which are mandatory. It is further submitted that as

a matter of fact, no-one was appearing on behalf of the petitioner

before the PLA. It is also submitted that though in the aforesaid

award, presence of one Mr. Anil Tanwar, Advocate is mentioned for

the petitioner, but the petitioner had never authorized Mr. Anil

(3 of 4) [CW-12633/2019]

Tanwar for appearing on his behalf before the PLA. It is also

submitted that as the conciliation proceedings could not be

conducted by the PLA, the award dated 27.11.2018 passed by it is

vitiated.

In support of the above contention, learned counsel has

placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. G.S. Jayarama (Civil Appeal

No.3872 of 2022) decided on 19.05.2022.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material

available on record as well as the certified copies of the order

sheets produced by the petitioner along with application No.1/22.

The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner

that he has not authorized Mr. Anil Tanwar as an Advocate to

appear on his behalf before the PLA but despite that the PLA has

passed the award dated 27.11.2018 while mentioning the name of

Mr. Anil Tawar as an Advocate appearing for him, is appears to be

afterthought.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate

that he has approached the PLA with the grievance that the

presence of Mr. Anil Tanwar as an Advocate on his behalf has

wrongly been mentioned in the award. He has also not filed any

review application before the PLA claiming that he has not

authorized Mr. Anil Tanwar to appear on his behalf as an Advocate

and his presence has wrongly been mentioned in the impugned

award.

In such circumstances, this Court is not convinced with the

contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not

authorized Mr. Anil Tanwar as an Advocate to appear on his behalf

before the PLA is an afterthought.

(4 of 4) [CW-12633/2019]

The another argument of learned counsel for the petitioner

that the PLA has not conducted any conciliation proceedings

before passing the impugned award is also of no force and the

same is evident from the order sheet dated 27.09.2018 and order

sheets of the subsequent dates.

Form the order sheets of the PLA dated 27.09.2018,

23.10.2018, 13.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 it is clear that

conciliation proceedings were conducted by it and ultimately when

the conciliation proceedings were failed, the PLA has passed the

impugned award while adjudicating the dispute between the

parties.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in

the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order. Hence, this

writ petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 38-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)