Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, J.
R. Praveen Kumar - Appellant
Versus
M. Pratap Reddy and Ors. - Respondents
CRP Nos. 1082, 1084 and 1102 of 2020
Decided On : 16-12-2020
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Sections 148 and 96(3) - -Telangana Civil Courts Act, 1972 - Section 2(a) - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21(2) - Recovery of the amount - Settlement of claim of plaintiff pertaining to all the suits - Discharge of the amount - Whether the impugned orders passed by the Civil Court extending time for payment fixed in the award of Lok Adalat, warrant any interference - Petitioner filed OS file of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri, against the 1st respondent herein, for recovery of the amounts - default to pay any of the installments, plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree for entire suit claim pertaining to each suit together with interest @ 12% per annum till realization from the date of this award - sole defendant in all the three suits, paid the first installment and same was received by the petitioner.With regard to payment of 2nd installment - petitioner/plaintiff submits that the 1st respondent/defendant has agreed to pay amount and in terms of the settlement arrived at between parties, the award was passed - Section 2(a) of the Telangana Civil Courts Act, 1972 defines the 'Court', which means 'Civil Court' established or deemed to be established under that Act; that Lok Adalat cannot be equated to a Civil Court as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act of 1972; that provision under Section 148 of C.P.C., which enables Court to enlarge the time fixed or granted by Court - Applicable to the award passed by Lok Adalat, for the reason that the Lok Adalat cannot be considered as 'Civil Court,' and even assuming that Lok Adalat is 'Court', since time schedule for payment is not fixed or granted by Court –
Finding of the court : Court have considered the matter There was undoubtedly some delay in payment of the amount due as per the terms of settlement reached in Lok Adalat - It was also agreed by and between the parties that if the terms of payment including the time schedule of payment is not adhered to, respondent - Bank will be at liberty to recover entire amount due - impugned order had considered the matter and had taken the view that even on the fact of express terms between the parties that the bank would have a right to recover the full amount due in event of default on the part of the appellants, the same was not only course of action or the sole option and that on the grounds shown for the delay same is liable to be understood in favour of the borrower - Court it is clear that if grounds for delay in payment are shown to be justified for departing from what was agreed upon condonation of the delay is a possible course of action - ground that due to loss of business, he is not in a position to pay within the time agreed and, therefore, sought two months time for payment of the balance amount - respondent/defendant filed application under Section 148 of C.P.C. enables the Court to extend the time fixed or granted by Court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by this Code for a period not exceeding thirty days –
Result : Revisions are dismissed
ORDER :
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
1. The parties in all the revisions are common. Petitioner filed OS Nos. 1296 and 1307 of 2016, on the file of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri, against the 1st respondent herein, for recovery of the amounts. The 2nd respondent, as the G.P.A. holder of the petitioner, filed OS No. 864 of 2017 against the 1st respondent herein for recovery of the amount. In the three revisions, the 2nd respondent, is endorsed as not necessary parry.
2. As the parties have arrived at a settlement, the three suits were referred to Lok Adalat held at Mandal Legal Services Committee, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District. The Lok Adalat, vide common award dated 31.10.2018 in the Lok Adalat Case No. 64 of 2019, recorded compromise in all the three suits, and passed the award. The terms of compromise are as under :
2. In case of default to pay any of the installments, plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree for entire suit claim of Rs. 41,21,000/-, Rs. 19,51,000/- and Rs. 53,21,000/-, pertaining to each suit together with interest @ 12% per annum till realization from the date of this award.
3. Plaintiff agreed to give consent for withdrawal of N.I. Act complaint in CC No. 120/2016 on the file of HI Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri against which the defendant preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl. Apl. No. 776 of 2017 on discharge of the amount by the defendant in terms of the award on or before 30.4.2019.
4. Plaintiff is entitled for refund of Court-fee in all the suits.
This Award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court."
3. The 1st respondent herein, who is the sole defendant in all the three suits, paid the first installment of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only), and the same was received by the petitioner. With regard to payment of 2nd installment, which is the final installment, the 1st respondent/defendant, filed I.A. No. 981 of 2019 in OS No. 864 of 2017, I.A. No. 980 of 2019 in OS No. 1307 and I.A. No. 979 of 2019 in OS No. 1296 of 2016, under Section 148 of CPC, seeking to extend the time for a period of sixty days.
4. The Trial Court, vide individual orders dated 26.8.2020, which are of identical in nature, allowed the applications. Assailing the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the 1st respondent/defendant has agreed to pay the amount by 30.4.2019, and in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the award was passed; that Section 2(a) of the Telangana Civil Courts Act, 1972 defines the 'Court', which means the 'Civil Court' established or deemed to be established under that Act; that Lok Adalat cannot be equated to a Civil Court as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act of 1972; that the provision under Section 148 of C.P.C., which enables the Court to enlarge the time fixed or granted by the Court, cannot be made applicable to the award passed by Lok Adalat, for the reason that the Lok Adalat cannot be considered as 'Civil Court,' and even assuming that Lok Adalat is 'Court', since the time schedule for payment is not fixed or granted by the Court, and it is the parties who have agreed the time schedule, and that when the Court has not fixed or granted time, Section 148 of C.P.C., cannot be relied upon to enlarge the time; that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is a consent order, and as per Section 96(3) of C.P.C., no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties, and that even as per Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for sho
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
