PEERLA AKBAR BEGH Vs. K CHAND BASHA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 95/97. The respondent filed the said suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,03/200;- with 12% interest thereon on the basis of a registered mortgage dated 23-5-1994 in respect of the suit schedule property. The issue was settled before Lok Adalat held on 22-2-1998 where under the petitioner-defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.92,400/- to the respondent-plaintiff to the full satisfaction of the suit amount. According to the respondent, the petitioner instead of paying the entire amount in lumpsum started paying some amounts at his pleasure. In those circumstances, the respondent filed I.A.No. 829/99 for passing a final decree in the suit and that application was allowed ex parte on 3-11-1999 ordering sale of the suit schedule property. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.No. 2/2001 for setting aside the ex parte final decree and the Court below by order dated 6-2-2001 allowed the said application on condition that the petitioner deposits the remaining agreed amount on or before 15-2-2001, with a default clause. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner-defendant filed the present revision petition contending that the Court below erred in passing the final decree ex parte. He further contended that the Court below while setting aside the ex parte order, is not justified in imposing a condition to deposit the remaining amount. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision in Jeypore Sugar Company, Ltd. v. Pameria Surya Rao wherein this Court has taken a view that while considering the application for setting aside the ex pane order, the Court is not justified in directing payment of the entire or part of the suit claim and such a condition is not only onerous but also an unjustified one. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court in the above case. But the case on hand stands on different footing. In this case, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed an award on 22-2-1998 to the following effect: "Whereas the above said parties to the petition agreed before the Lok Adalat for compromising the matter and the parties agreed that the Lok Adalat shall process the papers to the Court for passing compromising Award in accordance with the following terms: (1) That the parties settled the suit claim at Rs.92,400/- (2) A sum of Rs. - is paid today by the defendant to the plaintiff for which a receipt is also passed. (3) The defendant shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 92,400/- by (4) In case of default, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the entire amount with costs and interest as prayed for. Convenor Lok Adalat

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff contended that though the petitioner-defendant agreed to pay Rs. 92,400/-, he started paying some amounts at his pleasure instead of paying entire amount in lumpsum. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner-defendant that he is sending the amounts but the respondent plaintiff is refusing to receive the same and no date for payment is specified in the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. I am unable to agree with this contention of the petitioner-defendant. The intendment of establishing the Lok Adalats and settlement of disputes through negotiations and Counselling is to render speedy justice by way of an amicable settlement between the parties. It is a gentlemen agreement arrived at with the consent of bom the parties to a proceeding and the parties are bound to respect the said agreement and the terms thereof. In this process, the legitimate party will naturally forgo a portion or a part of his claim which he would have otherwise got in course of time, with a found hope that he will reap the benefits of such agreement immediately after the Award or within a reasonable time, as no appeal lies against the Award of the Lok Adalat. The sooner the relief he gets the sooner the loss he forgets.

(3.) In the case on hand, an Award was passed with the consent of both the parties on 22-2-1998. The petitioner-defendant could succeed in dragging on the matter upto the High Court level, taking advantage of some lacunas or technicalities occurred in the Award. Now he contends that the final decree is passed in his absence and while setting aside the same, the Court below cannot impose such an onerous condition more so when no time limit for payment of the amount was mentioned in the Award. Generally an unscrupulous litigant would like to thrive by raising all legal and illegal pleas before other forums, but it should not be so before the Lok Adalats. Even though no date for payment of the agreed amount is mentioned, the party is expected to comply with the terms of the agreement immediately after the Award or within a reasonable time. Therefore, the petitioner-defendant cannot take shelter under the lacunas and raise all sorts of objections in a case of this nature. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. If this trend is allowed to continue, the very purpose of adjudicating the disputes in Lok Adalats will be defeated and the party who obtained decree in the Lok Adalat proceedings will lose faith in this forum also.