Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V Srishananda, J.
Smt. Pooja, D/o Shankargouda Biradar - Appellant
Vs.
Sri Siddanna, S/o Gunderao Biradar - Respondent
Writ Petition No.205205 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 18-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri S. S. Mamadapur, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri Mahadev S. Patil, Sri Ravi B. Patil, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The Lok Adalath, despite being presided over by a judicial officer, cannot exercise judicial powers and its acceptance of a compromise decree must be in accordance with settled principles of law.
Headnote:
Lok Adalath - Compromise Decree - The Lok Adalath's acceptance of a compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was set aside by the court as it was found to be in opposition to settled principles of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minor defendant, was represented by her grandfather in a suit which purportedly ended in a compromise. The Lok Adalath accepted the compromise and decreed the suit, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition to challenge the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lok Adalath's acceptance of the compromise was in opposition to settled principles of law as the Lok Adalath, despite being presided over by a judicial officer, was not entitled to exercise judicial powers and could not entertain applications requiring judicial orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the Lok Adalath's acceptance of the compromise decree and the judicial powers of the conciliators presiding over the Lok Adalath.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Lok Adalath, despite being presided over by a judicial officer, could not exercise judicial powers and its acceptance of the compromise decree was in opposition to settled principles of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the Lok Adalath's acceptance of the compromise and the decree passed in the suit were set aside, and the matter was restored to the civil court for disposal in accordance with law.
ORDER :
Heard Sri S. S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahadev S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ravi B. Patil learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or any other direction in the nature of writ quashing/setting aside the compromise decree dated 27-10-2007 passed by the Taluka Legal Authority, Sindagi (Lok Adalath) in O.S.No.394/2007 vide Annexure-F as well as the execution proceeding in EP No.3/2018 as pr the Annexure-G pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sindagi in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner being the minor defendant in O.S.No.99/2007 was represented by her grandfather namely Gunderao. Suit purportedly ended in a compromise by filing a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. An application was also filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner under Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC for permitting grandfather of the petitioner seeking permission to enter into compromise.
4. The Lok Adalath presided over by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sindagi as conciliator No.1 and Member Secretary, Taluka Legal Serviced Committee as conciliator No.2 and another conciliator (name not forthcoming) allowed I.A. No.3 and compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC dated 27.10.2007 at Annexure – E and decreed the suit in terms of Annexure – E. The same was challenged before this Court by filing the present writ petition after the petitioner receiving notice in the execution petition.
5. Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree of the Lok – Adalath cannot be challenged anywhere else except by filing the writ petition and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this present writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Mahadev S. Patil, learned counsel for contesting respondent contended that the Trial Court considering the memo filed by the parties before it referred the matter to Lok – Adalath by order dated 08.10.2007. Before the Lok – Adalath Annexure – E came to be filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, as also an application came to be filed under Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC. Therefore, the order accepting the compromise by the Lok – Adalath is just and proper.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the proceedings before the Lok – Adalath is not a judicial proceedings. It may be a fact that a Judicial Officer preside over the Lok – Adalath as a conciliator along with an advocate conciliator. But before the Lok-Adalath such a Judicial Officer is not entitled to discharge the job of a ‘Judge’ and his role is only that of a conciliator.
8. Therefore, by sheer logic, it would result that the Lok – Adalath cannot entertain an application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC or for that matter, any other applications where judicial orders are required to be passed.
9. Further, it is settled principles of law that the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is to be accepted by the Court after entering satisfaction. Such a power is not available to the conciliators who preside over the Lok – Adalath (One of them being a Judicial Officer, but will be acting as a conciliator).
10. Under such circumstances, since the conciliators have exercised the judicial powers while presiding over the Lok – Adalath, order passed by the Lok – Adalath in accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit needs to be set aside as it is oppose to the settled principles of law.
11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The order accepting the compromise by the Lok – Adalath and in pursuance thereof, the decre
