Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 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.