RAMPHAL Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2.3.2015, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the suit was filed by respondents/plaintiffs for declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 87 kanals 2 marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 341, Khatoni No. 514 as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01, situated at village Badhawar, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, and the defendant, who happens to be the son of plaintiff No. 1, is cultivating the above said land with the prior permission of plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No.2 is owner in possession of Vi share of the above said land as per oral family settlement, and further that the award dated 6.3.2006 passed by the Lok Adalat, was not binding upon her because she had never suffered any such award. In fact, the plaintiff No. 1 herself is owner in possession of the suit land as per the jamabandi for the year 2000-01. The defendant, who happens to be her son, started cultivating the land with her permission . However, later on she came to know that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner/defendant. Ultimately, that suit was placed before the Lok Adalat. The plaintiff never appeared before the Lok Adalat, never engaged any counsel and never filed any written statement in that suit. In fact, the plaintiff was never even served with any summons from the Court in that suit. Hence, the award in that suit was obtained through impersonation of the plaintiff, thereby, committing a fraud upon the plaintiff as well as upon the Lok Adalat. When the plaintiff came to know of this fact, she had filed another Civil Suit No. 932/C of 2012. However, thereafter the defendant, who is the son of the plaintiff, assured that he would not sell the said property to any other person and without claiming any benefit from Award of Lok Adalat, would transfer the same in the name of the plaintiff No. 1. Therefore, acting on this assurance of the defendant/petitioner, the said suit was withdrawn by plaintiff No.l. Thereafter the plaintiffs asked the defendant to transfer the above said land in her name. However, the defendant; instead of transferring the said land in the name of the plaintiffs had turned the plaintiff No.l even out of the house. Not only that, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was executing sale deed in favour of another person. Hence, the present suit was filed.

(3.) Arguing his case, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has submitted that since there exists an award passed by the Lok Adalat, which is based on a compromise between the parties, therefore, the suit challenging the award could not have been filed before the Civil Court. If at all, the plaintiff was aggrieved of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, then the remedy available to the plaintiff was not to file civil suit, rather, to file a writ petition before the High Court, to challenge the award passed by the Lok Adalat, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 'Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthvam Reddv and others, 2017(4) RCR(Civil) 359'. Since this law point has been decided by the judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff before the civil Court was barred by law. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should have been allowed by the trial Court. Still further, it is submitted that earlier also the plaintiff No. 1 had filed another suit against the same award of the Lok Adalat, however, the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff No.l without permission to file fresh suit, therefore, the present suit would be barred by res-judicata as well.