Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24359
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
TUMKURU CITY CORPORATION TUMKURU DISTRICT – Appellant
Versus
M/S UNIVERSAL TRANSMISSION LINE PRODUCT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 7111 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Sakshi M. Krishna, Sri. Subramanya R.
For the Respondents: Sri. S V Prakash
Compromise orders in Lokadalat must adhere to legal procedure; absence of proper authorization invalidates such agreements.
Headnote:The case concerns a Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash an order passed by the Trial Court regarding a compromise in O.S. No. 168/2013. The court found the compromise illegal due to procedural irregularities and quashed the earlier order, restoring the suit for proper adjudication. The basis for the decision included the violation of prescribed legal procedures and highlighted the necessity for proper representation of statutory bodies in Lokadalat proceedings. The suit was to be disposed of expeditiously by the recent trial court. The main issues included the validity of the compromise and adherence to legal norms. The court emphasized that the absence of the Commissioner’s signature invalidated the compromise process, pointing out it as contrary to the established legal framework. The result was a ruling to allow the writ petition, quashing the Lokadalat order dated 03.09.2016, and restoring the suit for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for judicial review of compromise. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant contends compromise invalid due to lack of authorization. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court emphasizes adherence to proper legal procedure. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. compromise deemed unsustainable due to procedural violations. (Para 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 5. writ allowed and earlier order quashed. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is by petitioner/defendant in a suit in O.S.No.168/2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,50,199/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 31.08.2012 till its realisation purportedly payable by the petitioner/defendant towards the work of maintenance of electricity lights which was awarded by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/ plaintiff.
2. The order under challenge is one purportedly passed in Lokadalat held on 03.09.2016. In which, taking note of a petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, the aforesaid suit has been decreed for the suit claim and for payment of interest as agreed. It appears pursuant to the said compromise that was accepted in the Lokadalat, the respondent/plaintiff initiated proceedings in Execution Petition No.366/2017 seeking assistance of the Court in recovering the said amount. It is thereafter the petitioner/defendant apparently learnt about the irregularity committed in having the said compromise petition filed before the Court resulting in passing of the order impugned.
3. Smt. Sakshi M Krishna, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Subramanya R, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the record submits;
(a) That the vakalath in the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.168/2013 was executed by the Commissioner under his seal and signature. That even the written statement in the said suit has been filed by and on behalf of the Tumakuru City Corporation duly signed by the Commissioner as seen at Annexure-E.
(b) That the compromise petition found at Annexure-
F bears some signature without any name or seal of the authority. That apparently the said compromise petition was filed before the Court on 18.08.2016 and the trial Court had apparently referred the matter for Lokadalat and on 03.09.2016 the compromise was purportedly accepted by the Lokadalat.
(c) Referring to the said order sheet, learned counsel submits that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was irregular and illegal and contrary to the procedure prescribed. In that, relying upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Akkubai Vs. Venkatrao and others1, which is followed in the order dated 31.03.2022 by another Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.103766/2018, she submits that the procedure adopted by the Lokadalat in the instant case is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. That in the light of the irregularity and illegality, the compromise terms accepted in the Lokadalat is illegal and unsustainable and any further proceedings seeking enforcement of such an illegal order would cause prejudice to the petitioner/corporation requiring interference at the hands of this Court.
4. In response, Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff taking this Court through the statement of ILR 2014 KAR 2051 objection and documents enclosed therewith more particularly the office notes maintained by the petitioner/defendant produced at Annexure-R4, (page No.05) and paragraph No.13, submits that it is not as if the petitioner/defendant-Tumakuru City Corporation is not aware of the compromise that was entered into between the parties before the Lokadalat. The paragraph No.3 of the office notes of petitioner/defendant- Tumakuru City Corporation would indicate that it was resolved to honor the Lokadalat award passed as far back as in the year 2016. Being complacent of this matter, they cannot be allowed to reopen and reagitate the matter after five long years before this Court by filing the writ petition, which would not less than be an abuse o
