GH AHMAD MIR Vs. ALTAF HUSSAIN MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT one Altaf Hussain Mir filed Civil Original Suit 68/99 against the co -respondents in respect of land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas and 23 Sq. feets covered by Survey Nos 1709, and 1714/1167 of Kh. Nos 44 and 43, situated at Tangbagh Nawpora Srinagar. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat by Ist, Addl. Munsiff Srinagar. Before the Lok Adalat parties to the suit filed an agreement and compromised the matter, in terms whereof defendants to the suit admitted the plaintiff - Respondent No. 1 as title holder in possession/occupation of the land. The Lok Adalat passed award as such as per the agreement and compromise arrived at by the parties and a decree followed accordingly. Against this award and decree, appellant (even so before this Court) after seeking leave and permission to file Appeal, filed Appeal 8/2000 before District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The Appeal was assigned and transferred to 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The Appeal is dismissed by the Court vide order dated 29.6.2002. This 2nd Appeal is directed against this judgment of the Ist. Appellant Court in terms confirming judgment and decree passed in Lok Adalat as above.

(2.) THE appellant took number of grounds to assail the Appeal. The Ist appellate court on detailed discussion and for reasons recorded, rejected the grounds of the decree being outcome of fraud, manipulation and suppression of facts. The compromise and award of Lok Adalat is found not vitiated for alleged in -competence and incapacity of parties to enter agreement and compromise the matter through lawyer. The compromise has been found to have been duly entered and executed by the parties to the suit. Merely, because a suit is pending between the plaintiff and a third party for injunction before some other court in respect of the subject of the suit/ decree in terms of award on settlement of lis by Lok Adalat is not vitiated. The court has come to the conclusion that all this perse would not render the decree infirm or illegal.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances, the appellant though not a party to the suit having been granted permission to file the appeal has no locus to challenge the maintainability of the Appeal which the Ist. Appellate court has found not maintainable. The factual aspects of the case as contained in agreement and decree are based on evidence and documents. The alleged pleas of fraud, manipulation, suppression of facts are found not made out on record, more so, when the appellant is not party to the suit or the award or the decree. However, these questions are stated by the appellate court to be left open for adjudication in a separate suit, as and when the impugned judgment, award and decree is challenged in such suit/ proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate court, and in my opinion rightly has come to the conclusion that the decree in question cannot be assailed by a stranger on such pleas when he is not party to the suit, judgment, or decree. He has his own remedies, but not to question such a judgment and decree in Appeal after seeking leave to file an appeal more so, when the parties to the decree have stood by the agreement, compromise and the decree even before Ist. Appellate court. The pleadings of the suit which resulted in impugned award and decree contain averments regarding possession and title qua subject matter of suit to which appellant has taken objection. It is plain/manifest that since appellant is not a party to the suit as also to the award and decree, he is not bound by such award or decree. The award and decree is at his back and therefore, he cannot be presumed to be adversely effected, more so, when there is no pleading directed against the appellant in the above suit. Obviously, it is not the province of appellant to question the proceedings to which he was not a party. The award and decree is not based on invalid or illegal agreement/ compromise and so long the consent decree in question is based on such agreement with the seal and approval of the court, same cannot be questioned in appeal even by the parties and much less by a stranger to the suit, compromise and award/decree. So long the appellants as in this case are not bound by the impugned decree as they are not parties to the compromise and in that sense none of the appellants right is adjudicated upon, the appellant cannot be said to be prejudicially effected and therefor cannot come in appeal, though he may have his remedies elsewhere.