BOGA GOND AND ORS. Vs. RAMASAI GOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging, inter alia, the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabarangpur in E.P. No. 5 of 2005, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed. By the said order, learned executing court closed the execution petition on the ground that the decree holder was put in possession of the suit land.

(2.) The petitioner had availed a term loan amounting to Rs. 80,000/ - from opposite party No. 2 -Bank to purchase a tractor. He became defaulter. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 -Bank laid Money Suit No. 87 of 1996 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda for realization of Rs. 2,44,539/ - along with interest. While the matter stood thus, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat held on 7.5.2000. A joint compromise petition was filed by the parties on certain terms and conditions, vide Annexure -7. The contents of the petition had been read over and explained to the parties. They admitted to be correct. Learned trial court accepted the compromise petition and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Learned trial court observed that the compromise petition will form part of the decree. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the entire amount in terms of the compromise and the same was accepted by the Bank. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review the order dated 7.5.2000 passed by the learned court below in the Lok Adalat. It is stated that the suit was originally filed for recovery of Rs. 2,44,539/ - and subsequently the same was increased to Rs. 3,09,722/ - by way of amendment. The suit was placed before the Lok Adalat on 7.5.2000 and decreed for Rs. 1,15,000/ - on the compromise petition signed by defendant No. 1 and Assistant Manager of the Bank. While signing the compromise petition, the Assistant Manager put the seal of the Bank and signed the same as if he was an agent of the Bank without any authority to act as a Bank Manager in the Lok Adalat. Further, advocate for the plaintiff had not signed the compromise petition and unaware of the same. The Branch Manager has alone the authority to file a suit, sign the plaint, petition, appoint lawyers and has no authority to transfer power to any other officer/employee. It is further stated that the compromise made in the Lok Adalat was not lawful and the court acted beyond his jurisdiction and accepted the petition for compromise between the Bank and the defendants. To substantiate the case, the Assistant Manager of the Bank, who signed the compromise petition, was examined as P.W.1. By order dated 15.1.2003, learned trial court allowed the application and set aside the order dated 7.5.2000 passed in the Lok Adalat.

(3.) Heard Mr. Chandan Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties.