SEETHAMMA Vs. SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 89/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn. ) & JMFC, Belur and the respondent is the defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to dismantle the illegal construction made by him by trespassing into the suit schedule property at the cost of the defendant and for certain other reliefs. After conclusion of the trial, the learned counsel for the parties have argued the matter. When the matter was posted for judgement, the court below has referred the matter to Mediation Centre, Hassan under Sub-section to Section 89 of the CPC for amicable settlement of the dispute by order dated 30.09.2011. The petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition. Sri P. A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that plaintiff has not agreed for referring the matter to Mediation Centre, as he was not agreeable for the same.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned order.

(3.) It is clear from the materials on record that the plaintiff/petitioner has not agreed for referring the matter to the Mediation Centre for resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there is no justification for the trial court to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre Hassan. Section 89(1) of CPC states that where it appears to the Court that there exists elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give ahem to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalath; or mediation, When the plaintiff is not agreeable for referring the matter to mediation, question of referring the same by the trial court for mediation does not arise. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.09.2011 in O. S. No. 89/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn. ) & JMFC at Belur is hereby quashed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on its merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs.