Or. VII, rule 11 of C.P.C.- Suit to set aside Lok Adalat on ground of fraud & collusion - Trial court returned the plaint as not maintainable - only remedy is to file writ - Their Lordship held that Whether or not the appellant is justified in his claim, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud, are matters to be examined by the Court below. As the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to be exercised by the civil court only if the suit appears, from the statement in the plaint, to be barred by law, the court below erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that a civil suit is not maintainable. The order under appeal is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the appellants claim that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud. The Court below shall adjudicate the suit on its merits, and in accordance with law. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



They sought a decree in their favour, and against the
defendants, to declare para 18 of the compromise recorded in O.S.
No.481 of 2007 before the Lok Adalat dated 22.08.2007, in so far
as it related to land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts of land in Sy.
Nos.271, 272 and 273 shown to have created rights in favour of
defendant No.31 i.e., M/s. Bhargavi Constructions represented by
Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, as nonest in law for having been
obtained by fraud and collusion, by playing fraud upon the
plaintiffs; and for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, especially defendant No.31, their agents, servants,
employees etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule A, B and
C properties. =


The Court below had rejected the plaint solely on
the ground that a civil suit cannot be filed, and the plaintiffs
remedy is only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether or not the appellant is
justified in his claim, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by
fraud, are matters to be examined by the Court below.  As the
power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to be exercised
by the civil court only if the suit appears, from the statement in the
plaint, to be barred by law, the court below erred in rejecting the
plaint on the ground that a civil suit is not maintainable.  The
order under appeal is set aside.  We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the appellants
claim that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud.  The
Court below shall adjudicate the suit on its merits, and in
accordance with law.
      The order, under challenge in this appeal, is set aside and
the appeal is allowed with costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall also stand disposed of.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.

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.