DUTTI BARIK Vs. MINATI BARIK & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in M.S. No.167/01-III, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant no.3 under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and held that the suit is not maintainable and returned the plaint.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that one Bhikari Ch. Barik died in a motor vehicle accident. Claiming to be the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased, Dutti Barik, mother of the petitioners and opposite party no.1 filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.- IV, Bhadrak, which was registered as MACT Case No.273 of 1999. In the State Level Lok Adalat, the matter was compromised on 12.8.2000. Thereafter, the insurer deposited the entire amount before the learned Tribunal. Out of the same, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to opposite party no.1 and the rest of the amount was deposited in the nationalized bank.

(3.) While the matter stood thus, Dutti Barik instituted Money Suit No.167 of 2001 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak praying, inter alia, for a decree that she is not bound by the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Case No.273 of 1999 and set aside the same, for a direction to the defendant no.3 to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- along with P.I & F.I. Alternatively it was prayed that in the event the plaintiff is not entitled to separate claim, then defendant nos.1 and 2 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- to her. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Defendant no.3 filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC to decide the maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the court to try the same. It is stated that the plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the Lok Adalat. In view of the embargo of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC, no suit shall lie to set aside a compromise decree. In the event the party is aggrieved by the compromise decree, she can file an appeal under Section 173 of the M.V Act. The plaintiff objected to the same. By order dated 12.8.2008, learned trial court came to hold that special statute provides for a particular remedy. The aggrieved person may approach the forum provided under the statute. It was further held that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Held so, learned trial court returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate forum.