Karnataka High Court
Smt K Sugunamma vs K Devaraj on 24 January, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.25989/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SMT. K.SUGUNAMMA, 41 YEARS,
W/O VENKATESH
R/AT NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE
VARTHUR VILLAGE/HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE-560087. ... PETITIONER
(BY M/s.A N N ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
AND :
1. K DEVARAJ, 43 YEARS
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
R/AT NO.7, 6TH CROSS
L G IYENGAR BEKARY ROAD
KATHRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-560085
2. SMT. M MALLAMMA, 70 YEARS
W/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
3. K SRINIVASAPPA, 55 YEARS
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
4. K GOVINDARAJU, 48 YEARS
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
5. K NAGARAJ, 45 YEARS
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
2
REP.NOS.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT
VARTHUR VILLAGE/HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TAUK
BANGALORE-560087
6. BABU @ MANJUNATH, 30 YEARS
S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
R/AT VARTHUR VILLAGE/HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560087
7. MASTER D MANJUNATH, 18 YEARS
S/O SRI K DEVARAJ
8. MASTER D YESHWANTH KUMAR
S/O SRI K DEVARAJ, 15 YEARS
REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
K DEVARAJ, FATHER
REP. NOS.7 & 8 ARE R/AT
C/O K NARAYANAPPA
NO.7, 6TH CROSS
L G IYENGAR BAKERY ROAD
KATHRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD
BSK III-STAGE
BANGALORE-560085
9. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, 38 YEARS
D/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
R/AT VARTHUR VILLAGE/HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560087
10. SMT.GEETHA, 35 YEARS
D/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA
R/AT NO.46 5TH CROSS
VINAYAKANAGAR
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560026. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 TO R6; SRI BHARATH
KUMAR, ADV. FOR R10; SRI D S MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R9; R1,
R7 & R8 ARE SERVED)
3
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS AT ANNEXURE-A & B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner (plaintiff no.4) has questioned the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalat. The petitioner has not disputed her signature to the compromise petition but, the petitioner (plaintiff no.4) has strongly relied on the entry made in the order sheet to contend that she had not signed the order sheet.
2. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
3. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bangalore. The Lok Adalath was presided over by Principal District Judge (Judicial Conciliator) and an Advocate (Non Judicial Conciliator).
4. The proceedings of Lok Adalath reads thus: 4
"Case advanced. case refer to Lok Adalath. Both parties and advocates directed to appear before Lok Adalath.
Case taken up in Lok Adalath for
conciliation.
Plaintiff No.1 is the father of minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 and their guardian. Plaintiffs no.4 to 6 present. Defendants 1 to 5 present. Their Advocates present.
At the instance of the conciliators, well- wishers and Advocates, both the parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Accordingly, both the parties together filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The contents of the compromise petition are read over and explained to both the parties in the language known to them in presence of their Advocates and they admit the contents to be true and correct. Since the compromise is in the interest of the minor plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 is permitted to enter into compromise. Necessary application filed under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC is already allowed and the certificate by the Advocate for the plaintiffs is already accepted.
In view of the amicable settlement, the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise petition.
Office to draw preliminary decree
accordingly."
5. The petitioner (plaintiff no.4) had signed the compromise petition. The contents of compromise petition were read over and explained to parties by the Judicial 5 Member of Lok Adalath. Thereafter, the compromise petition was accepted and the office was directed to draw preliminary decree in terms of compromise petition. On 9.7.2012, it was noticed that the petitioner (plaintiff no.4) had not signed the order sheet dated 7.7.2012.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner (plaintiff no.4) submits that the compromise petition was a result of fraud practiced by respondents No.1 to 10.
7. Therefore, I deem it proper to send back the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bangalore, to refer the matter to Lok Adalath to hold an enquiry and record a finding on the fraud alleged by petitioner herein (plaintiff no.4). This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. The parties shall appear before Lok Adalath as and when notified by the members of Lok Adalath.
8. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-