RAVINDRA Vs. VIMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 7 through their Power of Attorney holder, respondent Nos. 8 and 9 filed a suit against respondent No. 10 in O.S. No. 13/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi for declaration and injunction in respect of suit lands bearing R.S. No. 421/1 + 2A+1 and 432/2A situated at Nippani. The said suit was compromised between the parties before the Lok Adalat on 29.01.2013. The Lok Adalat accorded the compromise and passed the decree. The appellant, not a party to the compromise proceedings preferred an appeal challenging the same, before the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum at Chikodi in R.A. No. 91/2013 along with an application seeking permission to prefer the appeal, besides filing applications for condonation of delay and production of additional evidence. The appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, against which, this appeal is filed.

(2.) SRI . M.G. Naganuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that appellant was not a party to the original proceeding, compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat is much against the interest of the appellant and is not binding on him. The Lok Adalat, the alternative dispute resolution mechanism exercising the jurisdiction under Legal Services Authorities Act failed to consider the collusive nature of the compromise decree entered into between the parties in O.S. No. 13/2013, depriving the legitimate right and interest of the appellant over the disputed property. The parties to the said suit without impleading this appellant as a party to the proceedings, knowing well that the appellant is in possession of the suit property, played a fraud in obtaining the compromise decree misusing the powers of the Lok Adalat. In such circumstances, the only option available to the appellant is to file an appeal against the said compromise decree before the competent appellate Court and the lower appellate Court without appreciating the same, out -rightly rejected the appeal as not maintainable. It is further contended that the applications filed by the appellant for condonation of delay and production of additional documents have not been considered by the lower appellate Court, on the other hand, considering the memo filed by the respondents stating that the Land Tribunal in year 1981 itself has decided the tenancy rights of the parties over the suit property and as per the award passed by the Land Tribunal, Smt. Parvatibai, wife of Sri. Maruti Dawakar (mother of respondent Nos. 1 to 7) was declared as tenant dismissed the appeal. It is argued that, it was incumbent on the part of the lower appellate Court to dispose of the applications filed by the appellant before disposing of the appeal. The lower appellate Court without passing any orders on the applications filed by the appellant, dismissed the appeal much against the law. In support of his contentions, the following judgments were relied upon:

(3.) AFTER considering the rival submissions of the parties, the main question involved in this appeal, whether a compromise decree awarded by the Lok Adalat under the provisions of Legal Services Act is appealable under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w 96 of CPC by a stranger to the suit proceedings is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in P.T. Thomas case (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaik Sharaff Uddin (supra) and Siddalingeshwar case (supra). However, in view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A(2) of the Code by a stranger to the suit proceedings, it would be beneficial to refer to the provisions of Section 96(3) and Order 23 Rule 3A and order 43 Rule 1A(2) of the Code. The same is extracted herein below: