Point of Law: when the fraud is alleged the same is required to be pleaded and established by leading evidence. Mere allegation that there was a fraud is not sufficient.

ORDER :

A.V.Sesha Sai, J.

Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Award, dated 07.10.2005, passed by the Lok Adalat, Kanigiri, Prakasam District in O.S.No.117 of 2003. The petitioners herein are the third parties to O.S.No.117 of 2003 instituted by one Smt Kopparapu Narasamma against one Sri Sunke Peda Venkateswarlu and five others. Smt Kopparapu Narasamma instituted the said suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners 1 to 8 claim to be the legal representatives of defendants 1 and 4 in the said suit and the petitioners 9 and 10 claim to be the purchasers of the schedule property from the defendants 1 and 3 and the legal representatives of the defendants 1 and 4 in O.S.No.117 of 2003.

2. According to the petitioners, petitioners 9 and 10 purchased an extent of 2710 square yards in Survey No.322/1 of Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District by way of a registered sale deed, dated 05.06.2014. It is submitted that when the petitioners 1 and 2 wanted to deliver the subject property to the petitioners 9 and 10, an obstruction was made by B.S.R. Educational Society and the same prompted the petitioners 9 and 10 to institute O.S.No.51 of 2017 in the month of March, 2017 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole against the respondents 2 to 4, who are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 2003 and one Bijjam Usha, for the reliefs of the declaration of title and for possession. According to the petitioners, they came to know of the impugned Award, dated 07.10.2005 in O.S.No.117 of 2003 for the first time on 28.08.2017 on receipt of a written statement filed in O.S.No.51 of 2017 from the respondents 1 to 4 therein. Alleging fraud on the part of the respondents 2 to 4, the present Writ Petition is filed, questioning the Lok Adalat Award, dated 07.10.2005, in O.S.No.117 of 2003.

3. A counter affidavit deposed by the 2nd respondent is filed on his behalf and on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, denying the allegations and averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

4. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri T.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned Award is highly illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It is also further submitted that the impugned Award is vitiated by fraud and impugned Award came to be signed only by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in O.S.No.117 of 2003, as such, it is not a valid one.

6. On the other hand, Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and Sri T.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents, resisting the very maintainability of the Writ Petition, contend that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and abnormal delay. It is further submitted in elaboration that though the impugned Award came to be passed on 07.10.2005, without offering any explanation for the said delay, the present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the solitary ground of delay. It is also their submission that a mere allegation of fraud cannot be a ground for setting aside the Award and if the same is allowed there would not be any end for the litigation. Sri T.Sridhar, further contends that in the written statement filed in O.S.No.117 of 2003 the 1st defendant in the suit, from whom the petitioners herein are tracing out their right over the property pleaded that the subject property is the ancestral property of the 1st defendant which he got in a family partition in the year 1996 and in the wake of the said pleading in the written statement