A compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat cannot be challenged on grounds of misrepresentation if official records affirm that the parties were read the terms in their known language and voluntarily admitted them in the presence of their legal counsel.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LOK ADALAT COMPROMISE DECREE/AWARD PASSED IN O.S NO. 702/2015 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI CONSEQUENTLY 06-02-2016 DATED VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

1) Set aside the Lok-adalat compromise decree/award passed in O.S No. 702/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli dated 06-02-2016 vide Annexure-A. consequently;

2) Restore the suit in O.S No. 702 of 2015 on the file of senior Civil judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru rural district to be decided in accordance to law.

3) Consequently, Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction or order directing the office of the sub-registrar to restore the sale deed Dtd: 24-06-2009, by revoking the entry of cancellation No: JAL-Rule 17(3) 00001-2015-16 in CD No JALD 216 in page 30. in the record of the sub-Registrar, Jala, Bengaluru

4) Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

3. What is challenged is the compromise decree/award passed in OS No.702 of 2015 before the Lok Adalat on 06.02.2016.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit was filed by the power of attorney holder of the petitioners. The power of attorney holder has misled and misinformed the petitioners and got the petitioner to sign the compromise petition. The petitioners have signed the compromise petition without knowing the contents thereof, they have also signed the order sheet of the Lok Adalat without knowing the contents thereof and therefore there is fraud which has been laid on the petitioner requiring the compromise petition to be set aside.

5. Heard Sri.Supreeth., learned counsel for the petitioners and perused papers.

6. A perusal of the compromise petition indicates that the petitioners have signed the compromise petition identified by their counsel. The said compromise petition has also been signed by the counsel for the petitioners who were the plaintiffs-therein.

7. A perusal of the order sheet of the Lok Adalat on 03.02.2016 indicates that the petitioners have signed the order sheet, they have been identified by their counsel, the defendant has also signed the order sheet and has also identified by his counsel. The Lok Adalat has recorded that the contents of the compromise petition is read over and explained to both the parties in “Kannada language” known to them and they have voluntarily admitted the contents are true and correct without any coercion. The compromise petition was thereafter perused and accepted to be lawful by the Lok Adalat.

8. When such recordal has been made by the Lok Adalat, the signature of the petitioners is found on the compromise petition as also the order sheet, it cannot now lie for the petitioners to contend that the petitioners were forced to sign the order sheet and the compromise petition before the Lok Adalat.

9. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed.