ANITHA SARAVANAN Vs. SASI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is 2nd defendant in O.S.No.502 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur. When the suit was pending the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalath where (allegedly) the matter was settled and an award was passed on 10.10.2008. When the first respondent sought to execute that award through the civil court, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to declare that petitioner has executed Ext.P3 compromise without understanding the terms and consequences arising out of it, she was defrauded in the matter of settlement of the suit before the Lok Adalath and to set aside Ext.P3, compromise and the decree in O.S.No.502 of 2008.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner contended that facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that fraud was played on petitioner and she was made to sign the compromise without understanding the contents. It is contended that since proceedings are vitiated by fraud, it is void ab initio. LEARNED counsel for first respondent contended that the fact of compromise was acknowledged by petitioner even in the proceedings in execution of the award.

(3.) THERE can be no doubt that compromise petition is the result of fraud played on petitioner, the award passed on the basis of that compromise cannot stand. But, that is not a matter which this Court is required to go into under Article 227 of the Constitution since disputed questions of fact which requires evidence to substantiate it are involved. It is agreed by both sides that no decree is passed by the civil court based on the (alleged) compromise so that, petitioner has to move in the same suit as provided in order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since what is challenge is the compromise in the Lok Adalath and the award passed by it, petitioner has to approach the civil court and challenge the compromise and award of the Lok Adalath on the ground of fraud as pleaded by her. In Maria Chemicals v. Union of India [2004 (2) KLT 273 (SC)] the Apex Court has held referring to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal that to a very limited extent jurisdiction of the civil court can be invoked if the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent. When a decision of a Tribunal or other authority is challenged on the ground of fraud, the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide that question. In the circumstances, proper course open to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned award of the Lok Adalath in the civil court on the ground that fraud was played on her (as pleaded by her). Since that remedy is available to the petitioner, this writ petition cannot be entertained. Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the award of the Lok Adalath as stated above, this writ petition is closed.