LILAWATI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI NIRMAL KUMAR RESIDENT OF LAKHI BHAWAN, MISSION Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the award dated 01.11.2012 (Annexure-3) passed by the Principal Judge, Permanent Lok Adalat, Saran at Chapra in Pre-litigation Title Suit No.38 of 2012/ 13 of 2012 (Satya Narayan Prasad v. Lilawati Devi and others) on the basis of so alleged compromise having effected amongst the parties.

(2.) As has been perceived from rival pleadings, a petition was filed on behalf of respondent, Satya Narayan Prasad with regard to declaration of Schedule-1 Property being his exclusive property, defendants have got no title and interest with regard thereto along with other ancillary reliefs before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Saran at Chapra whereupon, notices were issued against the petitioners/ defendants in pursuance of guideline so prescribed under L.P.A. No.233 of 2013 (Srinivash Rai v. Mahendra Rai and others) followed with appearance. After due consultation, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority perceived theme of compromise whereupon transmitted the record to the Lok Adalat fixing a date 29.10.2012, on which date, both the parties appeared, filed their Identity Card relating to their proper identification, heard and during course thereof, both the parties admitted factum of compromise, consequent thereupon, on 01.11.2012 order was passed in terms thereof, accepting the compromise as well as directing for preparation of award as is evident from Annexure-A of the counter-affidavit. Preparation of the award in terms of compromise petition and identifying the same to be part and partial of the award is the subject matter of instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents during course of such exercise managed to, succeeded in duping the appellants in getting their signature as well as other relevant documents, who are none else than own sisters and on account thereof, by having the relevant documents in their possession belonging to the petitioners, the respondents succeeded in procuring the order impugned by means of playing fraud. So, submitted that the order impugned followed with award is fit to be quashed.