RANVEER KUMAR MAHIYA Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dtd. 24/5/2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner ('PLA'), whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of sum of Rs.60,000.00 within a period of one week to the respondent, failing which, he was required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date the application was filed.

(2.) The application was filed before the PLA with the submissions that an agreement was entered into between the parties for setting up Solar Plant of 5 KW. Under the terms of the contract, a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 was paid to the petitioner, however, allegations were made that the petitioner failed to do the needful and therefore, he may be directed to accept the balance payment and do the needful. A reply to the application was filed denying the submissions made and indicating that on account of non-cooperation by the father-in-law of the applicant, the plant could not be set up and that the averments made in the application were incorrect.

(3.) The PLA, after attempting to settle the issue mutually, ultimately came to the conclusion that on account of involvement of the father-in-law of the applicant, no direction could be given to the third party and came to the conclusion that as a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 has been paid to the petitioner, as he has done basic work of Rs.40,000.00, he should refund a sum of Rs.60,000.00and passed the order as indicated herein-before. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the PLA had no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the petitioner had specifically denied having received the sum as indicated and that he had only received Rs.50,000.00 and therefore, the direction issued regarding refund of Rs.60,000.00 is wholly unjustified. Submissions have been made that it was required of the PLA to seek evidence and in absence thereof, the matter could not have been decided and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside.