Karnataka High Court
Smt Channabasamma W/O Late S ... vs Shadakashari S/O S Nanjundappa on 10 December, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
Writ Petition No.27494/2011 (GM-CPC)
C/W
Writ Petition No.40794/2012 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 27494/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. Smt CHANNABASAMMA
W/O LATE S. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT PURLE
HOLEBENNAVALLI POST
SHIMOGA
SINCE DEAD, BY HER LRs.,
i.e., PETITIONERS No.2 TO 7,
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD
2. PANCHAKSHARI
S/O LATE S. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED 37 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MATTIKAI
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
3. Smt BHAGYA
W/O T.B. BASAVARAJ
AGED 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT SANKALPA
FLAT NO.51, 4TH A MAIN
VIRGONAGAR POST
BANGALORE-49
4. Smt MANJULA
W/O DAKSHINAMURTHY
AGED 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT SANKALPA
FLAT NO.51, 4TH A MAIN
VIRGONAGAR POST
BANGALORE-49
2
5. Smt GEETHA
W/O S. CHANDRU
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT
'SIDDALINGESHWARA NILAYA'
II MAIN CROSS, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION
TUMKUR
6. Smt N. ANAND SUMA
AGED 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.19
5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD
T.R. NAGAR
OPPOSITE DATTATHREYA TEMPLE ROAD
BANGALORE-28
7. Smt N. SUMATHI
W/O N. HARISH
AGED 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT SWARNA GOWRI NILAYA
2ND MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGAR
TUMKUR ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SHADAKSHARI
S/O S. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT H.H. ROAD
PURLE VILLAGE, HOLEBENNUVALLI POST
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
2. Smt SHANTHA
W/O S.N. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT OLD BAR LINE ROAD
SHIMOGA ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri CHIDAMBARA, ADV., FOR Sri R. GOPAL, ADV., FOR R1,
Sri H.R. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR Sri S.V.PRAKASH, ADV., FOR
R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 15.11.2003 PASSED BY THE LOK
ADALATH IN RA No.15/2000 BEFORE THE PRL. DISTRICT
3
JUDGE AT SHIMOGA AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COST OF THIS
PETITION.
IN WP No.40794/2012:
BETWEEN:
Smt SHANTHAMMA @ SHANTHA
W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
R/O DR.C.L.RAMANNA ROAD
SHIMOGA CITY
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri H.R. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR Sri S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. Sri SHADAKSHARI
S/O S. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF H.H.ROAD
PURLE VILLAGE
HOLEBENUVALLI POST
SHIMOGA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201
2. Smt CHENNABASAMMA
W/O LATE S. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
RESIDENT OF PURLE VILLAGE
HOLEBENUVALLI POST
SHIMOGA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.,
R1 & R3 TO R8, WHO ARE
ALREADY ON RECORD
3. Sri PANCHAKSHARI
S/O LATE S. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF MATTIKAI
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT--577 418
4
4. Smt BHAGYA
W/O LATE T.B. BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
RESIDING AT "SANKALPA"
FLAT NO.51, 4TH 'A' MAIN
VIRGONAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 049
5. Smt MANJULA
W/O DAKSHINAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
RESIDENT OF NO.115
COLSE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
6. Smt SUMA
W/O ANAND
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
RESIDENT OF H.NO.19
5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN
BEHIND DATTATREYA TEMPLE
TYAGARAJANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 005
7. Smt N. SUMATHI
W/O N. HARISH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
RESIDENT OF 'SWARNAGIRI NILAYA'
2ND MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGARA
TUMKUR CITY-572 201
TUMKUR DISTRICT
8. Smt GEETHA
W/O S. CHANDRU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
HOUSE MAKER
'SIDDALINGESWARA NILAYA'
SIDDAGANGA EXTENTION
2ND MAIN CROSS
TUMKUR CITY-572 201 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri CHIDAMBARA, ADV., Sri R. GOPAL, ADV., FOR R1,
Sri B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADV., FOR R3 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
5
AWARD DT.15.11.03, PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT IN
RA.NO.15/03 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. JUDGE, SHIMOGA
PRODUCED AS ANN-B.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the order dated 15.11.2003 on the file of Prl. District Judge, Shimoga, wherein, the Lower Appellate Court has accepted the settlement arrived at between the parties in R.A.No.15/2000 through Lok Adalath. Since both the parties did not agree to accept the settlement of the Lok Adalath, this Court directed the parties to be present before this Court. Today, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 and Respondent No.2-Smt. Shantha are present. Respondent No.1-Shadakshari is absent though there was a direction issued by this Court to keep himself present. It is clear that Respondent No.1 is not ready to come to the compromise terms. There is no point in keeping this matter pending in this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
2. The award passed by the Lok Adalath in R.A.No.15/2000 before the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga arises out of O.S.No.81/2007 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM., Shimoga. I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM., Shimoga had partly decreed the suit, which was challenged in 6 the Regular Appeal before the District Judge at Shimoga. When the matter was pending before the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No.15/2000, at the intervention of the Lok Adalath, the matter was settled before the said Court on 15.11.2003. However, some of the parties to the suit were not the parties to the said compromise. One Shantha/Defendant No.5 and one N.Suma/Defendant No.8 were not present when the matter was settled before the Lok Adalath. While N.Suma had come to the Court and signed the said compromise memo on 3.1.2004, Smt. Shantha has not signed the compromise memo at all. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners herein that they were not the parties to the compromise effected before the Lok Adalath and that even today they are not agreeable for the compromise effected through Lok Adalath and they have filed these petitions seeking to set aside the award. After filing of these petitions, this Court has tried to settle the matters amicably and in order to amicably settle the issue, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Court today. Though the aforesaid parties were present, Respondent No.1-Shadakshari has not appeared before this Court and it is the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that he has been informed that the said Shadakshari is not well. However, he has not substantiated his submission by producing any document whatsoever to show that Respondent 7 No.1 is really unable to come to this Court. Hence, it is clear that he is not ready to settle the issue between himself and the petitioners No.2 to 7 and Respondent No.2.
3. Heard Sri B.S.Raghu Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners No.2 to 7; Sri Chidambara, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri S.V.Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2.
4. I have perused the certified copy of the compromise memo and the order sheet of the District Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No.15/2000. It is obvious that Shantha was not present before the Court when the compromise was entered into nor her signature is found in the order sheet. N.Suma, the defendant No.8, who is present before the Court today also submits that on the date of effecting the compromise, she was also not present, but however, she was made to sign the order sheet subsequently and she has signed it on 3.1.2004, which date is found mentioned in the order itself. This indicates that these two parties were not present when the compromise is effected and therefore it is necessary to secure full justice to the parties that the compromise effected as per the order dated 15.11.2003, is set aside.
5. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Award dated 15.11.2003 passed by the Lok Adalath in 8 R.A.No.15/2000 before the District & Sessions Judge, Shimoga is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below with a direction to dispose of R.A.No.15/2000 without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order within an outer limit of three months from today.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Lower Appellate Court on 4.1.2014 without waiting for the notice from the said Court and the said Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
7. Office to transmit the LCRs., forthwith to the Lower Appellate Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*