YALLAPPA Vs. ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT 1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O. S. No. 142 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gokak. Petitioner herein was the 1st defendant in the suit. Respondents 2 to 5 were defendants 2 to 5 before the Trial Court. In the suit, no summons were served on the petitioner who was the 1st defendant before the Trial Court. Without service of summons on him, he was placed ex parte. The case was adjourned from 9-12-2003 to 5-1-2004. On an application filed by the plaintiff, case was advanced from 5-1-2004 to 17-12-2003. On the request of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. Accordingly, matter was taken up before the Adalat on the same day. Before the Adalat, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 filed a compromise petition. Plaintiffs Counsel also filed an application to abandon the claim against 1st defendant who is the petitioner before this Court. Based on the application filed by the plaintiff, suit against the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Adalat and later on compromise was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. This order is called in question in this writ petition by the petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Counsel for the petitioner, Adalat has no power to pass any order on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC to dismiss the suit or abandon the claim against the petitioner. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Adalat can proceed to dispose of the case or a matter and arrive at compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by principles of justice, equity, fair-play and other legal principles. According to her, in the present case, by abandoning the suit against the 1st defendant based on the compromise petition filed between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, a final decree is passed even allotting certain extent of land to the petitioner herein in his absence and it is her specific case that while entering into compromise, self-acquired properties of the petitioner are also divided between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. Therefore, she requests this Court to quash the order passed by the Lok Adalat in obtaining the claim against the petitioner and accepting the compromise. Learned Counsel for the respondents, made an attempt to support the order passed by the Adalat.

(3.) HAVING heard the Counsel for both the parties, what is to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is that whether Adalat is justified in accepting the compromise petition by abandoning the claim against the petitioner herein and while accepting the compromise whether adalat has followed the principles of justice, equity and fair-play.