139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 30.01.2025 Ashok Gupta and others ...Petitioners Vs.

Raj Kumari @ Rajbala and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Ms. Vibhu Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate Mr. Satpal Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.1 & 3.

Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.4.

***

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (Oral)

1. Through this revision petition, the petitioner (defendant) assails the correctness of the trial Court’s order dated 15.05.2024 while dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint at the threshold.

2. A suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was filed by Ashok Gupta against Subhash, Ramesh, Raj Kumari @ Rajbala (plaintiff) and Meena Kumari. Ramesh, Raj Kumari @ Rajbala and Meena Kumari were impleaded through general power of attorney of Subhash s/o Sh Dharam Singh. During the pendency of the suit, Subhash on the basis of attorney entered into the settlement before the Lok Adalat, which resulted in passing of decree by the Civil Court on 08.12.2018. Subsequently, Raj Kumari @ Rajbala filed a suit for declaration and for passing a decree of permanent injunction claiming that Subhash was never authorized to make settlement because no power of attorney was given to him. It was claimed that the compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and subsequent decree passed by the Court on the basis of compromise is illegal. The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which as noticed has been rejected.

3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner while relying upon the judgment in 'Bhargavi Construction and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others’, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 359, contends that the correctness of the Award passed by Lok Adalat can not be questioned before the Civil Court. She further submits that as per Order 23 Rule 3-A of the CPC, no separate suit is maintainable to challenge the decree passed on the basis of compromise.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that validity of the compromise is dependent upon validity of power of attorney. He submits that the disputed questions of facts are involved and hence, the only remedy available with the plaintiff is to file a civil suit. He submits that Bhargavi Construction’s case has been explained by a Co- ordinate Bench in ‘Ramphal vs. Maya Devi and another, 2020(1)) Law Herald 864. He also relies upon the judgment passed in 'Jagir Singh vs.

Shama', 2016(1) PLR 500

6. Para 10 of the judgment in Ramphal’s case (supra) reads as under:-

“10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of this Court to any statutory provision, which per-se, bars the present suit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions (supra) to contend that the law laid down by the Supreme Court through a judgment, is also a law, which would have the effect of baring the civil suit in the present case. However, this court finds itself unable to agree with the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute regarding the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Bhargavi Constructions (supra), which is being relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, this Court finds that the present case is totally distinguishable on the facts involved in that case. A reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court shows that the plaintiff in that case had never disputed his presence before the Lok Adalat. His only claim was, at the best, that he had not understood the scope of the suit or he was misled by some misrepresentation. The total absence before the Lok