PILLAMMA Vs. B. NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's suit in O.S.No.327/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal [for short, 'the civil Court] is decreed on an application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). The decree is drawn pursuant to the order dtd. 21/9/2016 in Lok Adalath. The petitioner's grievance with the impugned order lies within a narrow canvass viz., that though it is recorded in the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC that a sum of Rs.8,00,000.00 is paid to her, it is not paid. The question for consideration is whether there must be interference by this Court in exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Sri. Raghavendra V., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner does not propose to resile from the compromise and that she is categorical that she has conceded all her rights in the immovable property in favour of her brothers [the defendants] in consideration of they agreeing to pay her a sum of Rs.8,00,000.00, but she is not paid this amount and hence, her grievance. The petitioner was represented by her counsel, but when the terms of the compromise were settled, the respondents- defendants asked her to engage another counsel as suggested by them so that the settlement is facilitated better. Accordingly, the compromise petition is filed through another lawyer, and she has not received the sum of Rs.8,00,000.00 though it is recorded accordingly.

(3.) On merits, and in support of the grounds urged, Sri. Raghavendra V. submits that the respondents have filed their statement of objections saying that the amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 was paid in the Lok Adalath in the presence of the Judge/Conciliating Officer, but the order of acceptance on 21/9/2016 does not refer to the same. None appears for the respondents.