The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit filed by the respondent was barred by the principles of res judicata, Section 47 of CPC, Order XXIII, Rule 3A, Section 21 of Legal Services Act, and the Limitation Act.

This revision raises some interesting questions of law relating to applicability of principles of res judicata, provisions of Section 47 CPC and Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

Revision is directed against the order dated 21/11/2015 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Amravati in Spl. C.S.No.337/2010 thereby rejecting the contention raised by the petitioner that the suit was not maintenable as it was barred by resjudicata and various other provisions of law.

2. Facts, necessary for deciding this revision, can be stated as follows : Respondent No.1 herein, has agreed to sell the area admeasuring 2149 sq. ft. with the construction thereon, to the petitioner by executing agreement for sale dated 16/11/2004 for valuable consideration of Rs.10,00,000/.

On the date of agreement itself, petitioner has paid Rs.5,00,000/to respondents as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 16/10/2005. The said agreement was confirmed by executing a supplementary agreement between the parties, at the time of which additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/was paid to the respondent on 16/11/2004. Another supplementary agreement dated 15/03/2005 also came to executed between the parties under which the petitioner herein paid the balance consideration also. However, the respondent failed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement. Hence the petitioner was constrained to file Spl. C.S. No.206 of 2005 for specific performance of the contract against the respondent.

3. When respondent received the summons of the said suit, he appeared in the Court and engaged his counsel. At that time respondent and his counsel proposed the petitioner to amicably settle the dispute. Accordingly joint pursis came to be filed by both the parties before the Court and matter was put up before the Lok Adalat on 16/10/2005. Accordingly on 16/10/2005 both the parties appeared before Lok Adalat and the matter was settled and compromised between them on the terms and conditions that the respondent shall pay Rs.6,50,000/to the petitioner vide two cheques of Rs.3,25,000/each drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Amravati. It was further agreed that if the said cheques are dishonoured and the amount of Rs.6,50,000/was not paid by respondent to the petitioner on or before 26/03/2006, then petitioner shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed through the Court. He was also held entitled to get possession of the suit property from the Court.

4. According to the petitioner, dispute between the parties thus came to be settled finally before the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the joint compromise pursis, bearing signatures of both the parties and their respective counsels came to be filed before the Lok Adalat. After ascertaining the terms of settlement of the joint pursis to its satisfaction, the Lok Adalat passed the compromise decree on 16/10/2005.

5. The petitioner thereafter presented both the cheques for encashment, however they were dishonoured. Respondent also failed to pay amount of Rs.6,50,000/on or before 26/03/2006. Hence petitioner filed Special Darkhast No.31/2006 for execution of sale deed of the suit property and for possession thereof. When respondent received notice of execution proceedings, he appeared before the Executing Court and filed various applications, contending that, at the time of compromise before Lok Adalat, his mental condition was not proper. His counsel was also not present before the Lok Adalat. Moreover he had no knowledge of English and therefore he was not aware about the contents of compromise pursis and hence decree passed on the basis of compromise pursis is not binding on him and it should be accordingly declared null and void.

6. The executing Court considered his application and after hearing learned counsels for the parties thereon, was pleased to reject the same, vide its order dated 22/11/2007, not accepting the contention raised by respondent No.1 that his mental condition was not proper at the time of compromise. T