Lokadalat award is executable even though not registered - affixture is sufficient service of notice = PETITIONER RESPONDENT SMT.PALAKURTHI VARAHALAMMA VS SRI SRINADHU RAMA KRISHNA - hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo=CRP&mno=2205&year=2013

Lokadalat award is executable even though not registered - affixture is sufficient service of notice =
Affixture of notice to the door is sufficient service =
Notice in the execution petition by registered post with acknowledgement due was ordered to the petitioner, but he left the village and therefore, the notice was returned unserved.  
However, the notice sent through Court was served by affixture and an affixture report of the Village Talayari was filed before the Court below.  So petitioner cannot contend that he is unaware of the E.P. 
Lokadlat award can not be defeated on technical pleas as it was not registered - it is an executable award = 
Having agreed to give the EP schedule property to the respondent under the award, it is not open to the petitioner to evade the service of notice in the EP and seek to defeat the rights of the respondent under the award by raising technical pleas.  
The purpose of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987  and the provisions therein is to enable settlement of disputes and put an end to wasteful litigation.  Parties cannot be allowed to defeat the said purpose by refusing to obey the award passed by it raising technical pleas.  
If the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent has not given some property to him, which he is entitled to get under the same award, nothing prevents him from filing an execution petition to get it.
CRP 2205 / 2013

CRPSR 12624 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SMT.PALAKURTHI VARAHALAMMA  VSSRI SRINADHU RAMA KRISHNA
PET.ADV. : RAYAPROLU SRIKANTHRESP.ADV. : KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR
SUBJECT: C.P.C.DISTRICT:  VIZIANAGARAM
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2205 of 2013

 

Date: 07.06.2013

 

Between :

 

Palakurthi Varahalamma

         

..... Petitioner

And

 

Srinadhu Rama Krishna

                   .....Respondent
























The Court made the following:









THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2205 of 2013



ORDER:

This Revision Petition is filed against the docket order dt. 20.03.2013 and subsequent order dt. 22.04.2013 passed in E.P.No.1 of 2013 in O.S.No.97 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.
2.      The petitioner is the judgment debtor in the suit.  The suit ended in a compromise recorded by the Lok-Adalat, Vizianagaram under an award dt. 08.06.2001.  The terms of the award are as under:
(i) The 1st defendant has given the ground floor of the building in lieu of the half share of the plaintiff in schedule A and has taken the 1st floor in lieu of her half share ;
ii) Likewise, the 1st defendant has given the northern portion of lands described in schedule B and put him in separate possession of the same and the plaintiff has already been given pattadar pass book and title deed and the 1st defendant has taken the southern portion of the said land in lieu of her share ;
iii) The 1st defendant shall discharge the outstanding debt payable on the property described in schedule B to the State Bank of India, S.Kot to enable the plaintiff to enjoy the northern half of the land free from encumbrance ;
iv) Both parties agreed to give up their claim in respect of the entire C schedule properties ;
v) The plaintiff is giving up his claim against the defendants 2 and 3 as they are only tenants and as they have vacated them and delivered possession of the properties covered by Schedules A and B.
3.      An Execution Petition E.P.No. 1 of 2013 was filed by the decree-holder /respondent under Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC seeking issuance of notice to the petitioner/judgment debtor and to direct the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the E.P. schedule property to him under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC.
4.      The Court below directed issuance of notice by registered post with acknowledgement due to the petitioner.  The said notices were returned unserved as the judgment debtor left the village.  Notices sent through Court to the judgment debtor were affixed and report of the Village Talayari to that effect was placed before the Court below.  Therefore, on 20.03.2013 the Court below set the petitioner ex parte and directed issuance of delivery warrant and posted the matter to 22.04.2013.  On 22.04.2013,  it is stated that the Court below directed issuance of fresh delivery warrant.
5.      Assailing the same, the present revision is filed.
6.      Heard Sri R. Srikanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent.
7.      The counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions :-
a)                                   Notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC was not served on the petitioner and therefore, the Court below could not have issued delivery warrant;
b)                                   The award of the Lok Adalat is only a preliminary decree and it is engrossed on a stamp paper and unregistered, and hence it cannot be given effect to; and
c)                                    The award of the Lok Adalat is not an executable award.
8.      The counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions and contended that the parties had agreed in the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 08.06.2001  in the suit that the petitioner shall give ground floor of the building in lieu of the half share of the respondent in schedule ‘A’ property and he would take the first floor in lieu of that half share; that petitioner had signed the compromise in the Lok Adalat and accepted the award; there is no challenge to the award on the ground that it is vitiated or for any other reason; as  the petitioner had not given the property to the respondent as agreed under the award, the execution petition was filed; the petitioner had evaded to receive the notice sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due and left the village and thereafter the notice was served by affixture and that was placed before the Court below; therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that notice in the execution petition was not served on him.  He also refuted the contention  that the award is not an executable award and contended that even if it is unregistered, the purpose of the settlement cannot be allowed to be defeated by the petitioner by raising technical pleas.
9.      I have noted the contentions of both parties.
10.    Admittedly, the petitioner has agreed before the Lok Adalat to give the EP schedule property to the respondent and signed on the compromise memo before the Lok Adalat.
On the basis of such memo, the award dt. 08.06.2001 was passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.97 of 1994.  
Having agreed to give the property to the respondent under the said award, the petitioner did not deliver possession of the property forcing the respondent/decree holder to file the E.P.  
Notice in the execution petition by registered post with acknowledgement due was ordered to the petitioner, but he left the village and therefore, the notice was returned unserved.  
However, the notice sent through Court was served by affixture and an affixture report of the Village Talayari was filed before the Court below.  So petitioner cannot contend that he is unaware of the E.P.  
Having agreed to give the EP schedule property to the respondent under the award, it is not open to the petitioner to evade the service of notice in the EP and seek to defeat the rights of the respondent under the award by raising technical pleas.  
The purpose of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987  and the provisions therein is to enable settlement of disputes and put an end to wasteful litigation.  Parties cannot be allowed to defeat the said purpose by refusing to obey the award passed by it raising technical pleas.  
If the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent has not given some property to him, which he is entitled to get under the same award, nothing prevents him from filing an execution petition to get it.
11.    In my opinion, filing of this revision is an abuse of process of Court and the petitioner is estopped from opposing the execution of the decree, having been a party to the settlement before the Lok Adalat.
12.    As there is no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the respondent.  Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.

         
                          _____________________________
                                        M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
June 07th, 2013.

SSP

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515