JUDGMENT :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. Lok Adalat settlements bring in its wake litigation galore. This is yet another writ petition which questions the legal validity of the award passed by the Lok Adalat Bench on the ground of fraud, violation of principles of natural justice and contravention of procedural prescriptions of law causing grave injustice to the parties to the litigation.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to declare the award dated 3.12.2016 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench, Kadapa in OS No. 192 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, is illegal, arbitrary and obtained by playing fraud on Court and it is violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to quash the said award.

3. Brief overview of the facts leading to the lis in this writ petition may be stated as follows:

4. This is a litigation between three brothers. The 2nd respondent herein filed a suit in OS No. 192 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for partition of the ancestral joint family property against his two brothers who are the petitioner herein, the 2nd defendant in the suit, and the other brother the 1st defendant in the suit.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this writ petition will be referred to as they are arrayed in OS No. 192 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Kadapa.

6. The plaintiff in OS No. 192 of 2011, has filed the suit for partition against his two brothers, who are the first and second defendants therein, claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property on the ground that the suit schedule property is their ancestral joint family property. It is, inter alia, pleaded in the plaint that the 2nd defendant is trying to alienate certain portion of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff learnt that the 2nd defendant has already entered into an agreement of sale in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property with a third party. So, when the plaintiff made an attempt to effect partition of the suit schedule property, the defendants did not cooperate for partition of the joint family properties. Therefore, he has filed the Suit for partition.

7. When the said suit was originally instituted in the Court, he has shown only the property which is shown in Schedule-I of the plaint schedule as their ancestral joint family property. The said property is a landed property covered by various survey numbers situate in Vallur Village and Mandal, Kadapa District.

8. When the Court ordered summons to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said suit, the 1st defendant made his appearance in the suit and he has filed his written statement admitting that the suit schedule property is their ancestral joint family property and that the same devolved on him and his two brothers after the demise of their father late B. Narasimha Reddy and that all of them are enjoying the said joint family property together. In a way he has agreed for partition of the said property and for allotment of 1/3rd share to each of the two defendants and the plaintiff. However, the summons issued to the 2nd defendant, who is the petitioner herein, was returned by the Process Server with his report that he refused to receive the summons. Therefore, considering the report of the Process Server that the 2nd defendant refused to receive the summons, he was set ex parte in the Suit.

9. Thereafter, when the suit is posted for trial, the plaintiff filed various interlocutory applications one after the other in IA No. 132 of 2014, IA No. 2291 of 2016 and IA No. 2771 of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to include some more landed and house property in the suit schedule on the ground that he subsequently came to know that the said property is also joint family property an