Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2286
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
CHANDRIKA @ CHANDRAKUMARI – Appellant
Versus
K.KRISHNAMMA – Respondent
RSA/922/2020
SRI.M.RETHEESHKUMAR, ADVOCATE V.THULASEEHDARAN PILLAI
The court established that fraud allegations must be specifically pleaded with substantiation; mere allegations without details do not suffice to invalidate a compromise decree.
Headnote:
Fraud - Compromise Decree - Condonation of Delay - The court analyzed the compromise decree's validity in light of alleged fraud claims and the impracticality of condoning an extensive delay, culminating in the dismissal of the second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, defendants in a civil suit, sought to challenge a compromise decree obtained via mediation, alleging fraud. They filed a second appeal after a significant delay in filing their first appeal.
Issues: Whether the significant delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether claims of fraud invalidated the compromise decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that fraud must be specifically pleaded, and without a solid foundation in claims of undue influence or coercion, the challenge to the compromise decree lacked merit.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.1298/2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court-II, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and the appellant in A.S.No.16/2020 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court'). The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants according to their status in the trial court unless otherwise stated.
2. The first appeal was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 1599 days in filing the appeal. The suit was referred to mediation and it was settled at mediation and a compromise decree was passed as early as on 15.10.2015. The appeal ought to have been filed before 14.11.2015. However, it was filed only on
12.2.2020.
3. According to the defendants, the plaintiff played fraud on the court and a compromise decree was obtained. Immediately after noticing the decree, the defendants initiated all the legal means to set aside the judgment and decree. However, they could not succeed. The defendants filed E.A.No.314/2019 and E.A.No.315/2019 to set aside the decree before the executing court. However, those applications were dismissed.
4. The first appellate court passed an order dismissing I.A.No.1/2020 to condone the delay on 10.7.2020. Accordingly, A.S.No.16/2020 challenging the compromise decree was also dismissed. Challenging the decree of the first appellate court, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.
5. Relying onTriloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (Dead) through legal representatives & others [ (2020) 6 SCC 629 ],Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs., [2012 (3) SCALE 550] , Ramesh Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. through Collector Faizbad & others [2020 KHC 2266], Gowrishankar & another v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Others [1996 KHC 769] ,S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Others [1995 KHC 182] ,Banwari Lal v. Smt.Chando Devi (through L.R.) & Another [1993 KHC 880] and Pandit Dhareshwarji's Ashram School, Begumpet v. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad, A.P. [Laws (APH) 2007 376], the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud on the defendants and thus the defendants are entitled to get it challenged in appeal in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the fraud vitiates everything and fraud and justice never dwell together. Hence, the appellants seek urgent intervention of this Court in the subject matter. It is contended that the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff cannot initiate action against the defendants on the date of suit and hence the plaint itself is illegal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. In this case, the first appeal was preferred with an application to condone the delay of 1599 days. Admittedly, a compromise decree was passed by the trial court based on the mediation process initiated in accordance with law. Mediation is one of the recognized modes of Alternative Dispute Redressal System and an initial presumption is attached to the compromise entered into between the parties before the mediators in accordance with rules. The compromise was acted upon by the court on the judicial side. Accordingly a compromise decree was passed. This decree was challenged in appeal along with a delay condonation application to condone the delay of 1599 days.
8. The first appellate court has considered the following points for disallowing the application to condone the delay.:-
1) I.A.No.4919/2016 was filed before the trial court to set aside the decree and judgment and it was dismissed on 16.10.2016.
2) The said order was challenged before this Court in O.P.(Civil)No.28/2017. The said O.P. was dismissed.
3) The review petition filed before this Court as Review Petition No.315/2019 was also dismissed on 03.04.2019.
4) Thereafter the defendants filed two petitions before the executing court as E.A.N
