Mohammad Ghouse vs Mohd. Saleem
2023 Latest Caselaw 3818 Tel

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                           AND
      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                    WRIT PETITION NO.29115 OF 2023

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)


          Heard Sri Mohammad Ghouse, party-in-person.


2.        Petitioner filed the writ petition praying to grant the following

relief:

          "....to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more
          particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the
          records relating to the Lok Adalat Award passed in Lok Adalat
          Case No.642 of 2023 on the file of the 4th respondent in

O.S.No.612 of 2022 in E.P.No.42 of 2011 in O.S.No.4387 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court At Hyderabad and consequently quash the same in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass...."

3. The brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are as

under:

4. The petitioner entered into an agreement with K.Balaiah,

who is the 3rd respondent herein, to purchase the land bearing

Municipal No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A in Sy.No.128/3 from the 3rd

respondent in the year 1992. The 3rd respondent got issued notice

to the petitioner purporting to cancel the contract dated

20.07.1992. The petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.4387 of 2004 PSK,J & LNA,J WP No.29115 of 2023

on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

seeking for specific performance of contract of sale dated

20.07.1992. The said suit was transferred to VII Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent no.3 entered

appearance through his counsel and dragged the matter for three

years and filed implead petition in the said suit for impleading

G.Chenna Reddy and G.Nagender Reddy. Further, G.Chenna

Reddy, G.Nagender Reddy and the 3rd respondent herein filed

another suit for title declaration and perpetual injunction vide

O.S.No.85 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad and the said suit was dismissed.

5. That in O.S.No.4387 of 2004, 3rd respondent was set

ex parte and said suit was decreed on 02.08.2006. The petitioner

filed E.P.No.42 of 2011 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City

Civil court at Hyderabad, to enforce judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.4387 of 2004. The Executing Court was pleased to execute

the sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide document no.3625 of

2007 dated 31.07.2007 in respect of the property bearing

Municipal no.8-3-167/B/19/A/A in Sy.No.128/3 admeasuring

1200 square yards, consisting of ground floor with ACC 2 rooms.

6. Further, petitioner narrated the history of litigation and filing

of other suits subsequent to filing of O.S.No.4387 of 2004 and also PSK,J & LNA,J WP No.29115 of 2023

appeals filed against the suits, correspondence between the

petitioner and GHMC Commissioner, criminal cases etc., objection

petition against execution applications in E.P.No.42 of 2011, CMA

No.104 of 2022 before the High Court, review petition before the

Supreme Court and SLP No.581 of 2023 before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court etc.

7. The above cases are filed after passing the ex parte decree

and however, prior to recording compromise before the Lok Adalat

Bench. In any event, the above cases are not relevant for

adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ petition.

8. Petitioner further contended that during the pendency of

E.P., respondents 1 and 2 herein have also filed O.S.No.612 of

2022 seeking for title declaration and perpetual injunction in

respect of the property i.e., MCH No.8-3-167/B/4/7 to 12 on plot

Nos.7 to 12 situated at Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad,

admeasuring 682 square yards.

9. During the pendency of the above suit, i.e., O.S.No.612 of

2022, the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 herein have

entered into the settlement and accordingly, an interlocutory

application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC was filed praying the II PSK,J & LNA,J WP No.29115 of 2023

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to permit the

parties to compromise the suit i.e., O.S.No.612 of 2022.

10. It appears that the suit was referred to Legal Services

Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and Lok Adalat Award vide

LAC No.642 of 2023 in O.S.No.612 of 2022 in E.P.No.42 of 2011 in

O.S.No.4387 of 2004 was passed on 05.06.2023 in terms of

compromise entered between the parties.

11. Now, the present writ petition is filed challenging the Lok

Adalat Award dated 05.06.2023 on the ground that respondents

have violated the terms of settlement.

12. During the course of arguments, the petitioner (party-in-

person) would submit that P.Suresh Babu and Mohammad

Raheem, who are not defendants in O.S.No.4387 of 2004 filed one

more suit i.e, O.S.No.310 of 2023 on the file of XXIV Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, against him seeking for

declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the property i.e.,

MCH No.8-3-167/B/4 (New H.No.8-3-167/B/4/D) on plot no.19/A

and 18/A in Sy.Nos.128/2 and 128/3, admeasuring 540 square

yards situated at Jayanthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, after

signing of compromise memo dated 05.06.2023, in violation of PSK,J & LNA,J WP No.29115 of 2023

terms and conditions agreed upon, and tried to obtain stay in

E.P.No.42 of 2011.

13. He further submitted that the above P.Suresh Babu and

Mohammad Raheem, are blackmailing the petitioner and

demanding him to sign another compromise memo before Lok

Adalat for another 600 square yards of land. He submitted that

the respondents 1 and 2 herein played fraud with the Court as well

with the petitioner and obtained compromise award/decree from

him by violating promises. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the

impugned award as it was obtained with mala fide intention by

playing fraud and abuse of due process of law and O.S.No.612 of

2002 be restored on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

court, Hyderabad.

14. Perusal of the Lok Adalat Award, impugned herein shows

that the Lok Adalat award was passed in terms of the compromise

entered between the parties. It is settled principle of law that a Lok

Adalat award can be challenged by way of filing of writ petition on

very limited grounds of fraud, misrepresentation.

15. The Hon'ble Apex in K.Srinivasappa and others vs.

M.Mallamma and others 1, held as under:

2022 SCC Online SC 636 PSK,J & LNA,J WP No.29115 of 2023

"41. In Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai v. Rajinder Singh - [(2006) 5 SCC 566], this Court held that since no appeal would lie against a compromise decree, the only option available to a party seeking to avoid such a decree would be to challenge the consent decree before the Court that passed the same and to prove that the agreement forming the basis for the decree was invalid. It is therefore imperative that a party seeking to avoid the terms of a consent decree has to establish, before the Court that passed the same, that the agreement on which the consent decree is based, is invalid or illegal.

42. It is a settled position of law that where an allegation of fraud is made against a party to an agreement, the said allegation would have to be proved strictly, in order to avoid the agreement on the ground that fraud was practiced on a party in order to induce such party to enter into the agreement. Similarly, the terms of a compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set aside the compromise decree in the instant case."

16. Petitioner filed the present writ petition to set aside the Lok

Adalat award on the ground of violation of terms of compromise

recorded in the Lok Adalat award, which is not a ground for setting

aside the award. Petitioner has an alternative remedy of initiating

appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

17. In view of the factual matrix and legal position, the petitioner

failed to make out any case to warrant this Bench to interfere with PSK,J & LNA,J WP No.29115 of 2023

the Lok Adalat award and thus, present writ petition is

misconceived, not maintainable and accordingly, Writ Petition is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

__________________________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 10.11.2023 Kkm