Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 46327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.12163 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SOMASHEKHAR G.M.,
S/O MURTHYNJAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: PROCESS SERVER,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSADURGA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KANTHARAJAPPA M.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHASHIREKHA,
W/O SOAMSHEKHAR G.M.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SAMRUDHI NILAYA,
POST OFFICE ROAD,
KAMANA BHAVI EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
2
HOSADURGA IN EX.NO.16 OF 2020 DATED 17.07.2020 ON
I.A.2
PRODUCED
AS
ANNEXURE-N
TO
THE
WRIT
PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
An award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, in terms of a settlement agreement is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is therefore executable by the Executing Court.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 - AWARD PASSED BY PERMANENT LOK ADALAT - EXECUTION - MAINTAINABILITY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the maintainability of an Execution Petition filed by the respondent to implement an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, arguing that the award was not a decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court under Section 22E(2) of the Act and was therefore executable by the Executing Court.
Issues: Whether the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was a decree and whether the Execution Petition filed by the respondent was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which provides that an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement agreement shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be final and binding on all parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Execution Petition filed by the respondent was maintainable.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order
dated 17.07.2020 on maintainability on the Execution
Petition passed in Ex.No.16/2020 by the Prl. Civil
Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, has filed this writ
petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The respondent has filed a pre-litigation case
before
District
Legal
Service
Authority
in
PLC.No.19/2016. The respondent and petitioner have
entered into compromise and presented compromise
petition before the District Legal Service Authority.
The District Legal Service Authority accepted the
3
compromise petition on 13.04.2016 and petition came
to be disposed of in terms of the compromise. The
petitioner did not comply with the terms of the
compromise petition. Respondent filed a Execution
Petition in Ex.No.16/2020 before the Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hosadurga. In the said Execution Petition,
petitioner
has
raised
objections
regarding
maintainability of the Execution Petition.
2.2. The Executing Court after hearing the
parties,
has
passed
the
impugned
order
vide
Annexure-N dated 17.07.2020, holding that the
Execution
Petition
filed
by
the
respondent
is
maintainable and award passed in PLC.No.19/2016 is
executable by the Executing Court. Petitioner being
aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned counsel for respondent.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Execution Petition filed by the respondent is
not maintainable. He further submits that Executing
Court has committed an error in deducting 2/3rd of
salary
of
the
petitioner
towards
recovery
of
maintenance amount, which is contrary to Section
60(1)(i) of CPC. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to allow the writ petition.
5.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent submits that parties have entered into
compromise and have filed a compromise petition.
The petitioner has failed to fulfill the terms of the
compromise petition. He further submits that the
award passed by the District Legal Service Authority is
decreed in terms of Section 22E of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987. He further submits that the
Executing Court was justified in holding that the
Execution
Petition
filed
by
the
respondent
is
5
maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7.
It is not in dispute that the respondent has
filed a petition for maintenance before the District
Legal Service Authority and parties have entered into
compromise before the District Legal Service Authority
and petition came to be allowed vide order dated
13.04.2016, wherein the petitioner was directed to
pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the
respondent towards her maintenance. Subsequently,
respondent and petitioner have filed compromise
petition under which petitioner has agreed to pay
maintenance
of
Rs.12,000/-
per
month
from
01.05.2018 and in the said compromise petition,
petitioner has agreed to make the payment of college
6
fee of his daughter to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner has refused to pay the
college fee to the respondent but continued to pay the
maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent.
Respondent has filed an Execution Petition for
implementing the award passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat with respect to the maintenance amount and
college fee of their daughter. The petitioner has
opposed the said application on the ground that the
award passed by the District Legal Service Authority is
not a decree. In order to consider the contention of
the petitioner, it is necessary to consider some of the
provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,
as per Section 22C (7) which reads as under:
Section 22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent
Lok Adalat-
(1) xxxx
(2) xxxx
(3) xxxx
7
(4) xxxx
(5) xxxx
(6) xxxx
(7) When a Permanent LokAdalat, in the
aforesaid conciliatio
