Point of law : Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 stipulates that every Lok Adalat at the time of settlement or compromise between the parties shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.

ORDER :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Order, dated 18.06.2019, passed in Lok Adalat Case No.885 of 2019, on the ground that (1) Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 therein colluded together and placed the terms of compromise before the Legal Services Authority, by forging the signature of the Petitioner on the memo of compromise and (2) that the Legal Services Authority went beyond its scope by adjudicating the rights of the 8th Respondent herein, though he was not a party to the suit, which is contrary to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 [“Act”].

2. Originally, O.S. No. 40 of 2012 came to be filed before the District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam, by the Petitioner herein seeking the following reliefs:

a) “direct the 1st Defendant to vacate and deliver the Plaint “A” schedule property to the Plaintiff by fixing time and in case of his failure permit the Plaintiff to get the possession of the Plaint Schedule Property through process of law.

b) cancelling the registered deed in favour of the 1st Defendant in respect of “B” schedule property which was registered before the Sub-registrar on 19-02-2011 vide doc. No. 105/2011.

c) cancelling the registered deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant in respect of “C” schedule property which was registered before the Sub-registrar on 19-02-2011 vide doc. No. 104/2011.

d) cancelling the registered deed in favour of the 3rd Defendant in respect of “D” schedule property which was registered before the Sub-registrar on 19-02-2011 vide doc. No. 103/2011.

e) grant a decree against the 1st Defendant for Rs.97,000/-together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.

f) award costs of the suit.

g) and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and just in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The 8th Respondent herein represented the Petitioner/ Plaintiff as General power of attorney holder in the said Suit. Written statements came to be filed and when the case was in the advanced stage, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which, the Order impugned came to be passed in terms of the compromise.

4. Sri. G. Udaya Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner mainly submits that when there is no reference of the case by the Civil Court to the Lok Adalat, as required under Section 19 (5)(i) and 20(1) of the Act, the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal and beyond jurisdiction. He further submits that the Lok Adalat erred in awarding a share to the 8th Respondent, who was not a party to the suit.

5. On the other hand, Sri. B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed counter disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated in the counter that the 8th Respondent, who as a General power of attorney holder of the Petitioner/Plaintiff (son), filed the above Suit for cancellation of gift deeds and delivery of vacant possession of the property, apart from seeking a decree against 1st Respondent for an amount of Rs.97,000/-with interest, is entitled for a share though not shown as one of the defendants. Since, the Plaintiff as well as the General power of attorney holder, representing the plaintiff were present before the Lok Adalat and agreed to the terms of the compromise, the Petitioner now cannot turn back and dispute the execution of the General power of attorney.

6. Sri. V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for 8th Respondent also filed his counter stating that 8th Respondent was directed by the Additional District Judge to bring the Writ Petitioner/Plaintiff to the court and also directed the Advocates appearing for the contesting parties to bring their clients to the Court on 18.06.2019. It is said that, pursuant to the said direction, the Petitioner as well as t