Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 136 (AP)

R. Laxminarayana v. B. Ramya

2002-02-03

body2002
( 1 ) THE petitioner/husband filed Transfer C. M. P. under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O. P. No. 260/2000 from the file of Family Judge, Hyderabad so also from Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to any other District Court-Family Court for impartial enquiry. No doubt, in the prayer it is referred to as ". . . with further referring the matter to Lok Adalat". But however, the counsel for the petitioner states that it is a mistake and it is ". . . without further referring the matter to Lok Adalat" since all the allegations made by him will definitely support his stand in this regard. ( 2 ) SRI Bajrang Singh Thakur, counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy, counsel representing the respondent had advanced elaborate arguments relating to the allegations made in the respective pleadings of the parties and also the other material available on record. In nut-shell, the question involved in the Transfer C. M. P. only boils down to this point to the effect that the petitioner/husband contending that though he is an unwilling party to have the settlement before the Lok Adalat, the learned Presiding Officer virtually had threatened him and forced to have a settlement and the same is not justifiable. It is also brought to my notice that now the Presiding Officer is a different Officer. Hence, I am not inclined to express any opinion about several of the allegations made in this regard, but suffice for me to state that the parties are expected to be careful and cautious while making allegations in Transfer C. M. Ps. since such allegations may on several occasions result in the initiation of contempt proceedings as well. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the then Presiding Officer is not the present Presiding Officer, I am not inclined to make any further comments relating to the remarks or otherwise made in this regard. ( 3 ) IN the present case, it is not in dispute that O. P. No. 260/2000 filed on the file of Family Court at City Civil Court premises Hyderabad, had been referred to the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 3 ) IN the present case, it is not in dispute that O. P. No. 260/2000 filed on the file of Family Court at City Civil Court premises Hyderabad, had been referred to the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is expressing his disinclination for the matter being referred to Lok Adalat and had been repeatedly requesting the Court to proceed with the matter further, the matter is being referred to the Lok Adalat. Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 dealing with Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats reads as hereunder: (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19, - (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat : provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2) the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2) the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. (6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advise the parties to seek remedy in a Court. (7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1 ). ( 4 ) THE stand taken by the petitioner that inasmuch as the petitioner is unwilling, the reference made to Lok Adalat cannot be sustained, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted in the light of the language employed in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as "act" in short. Section 20 (1) (i) (b) of the Act specifies ". . . one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement. . . ". Further, Section 20 (1) (ii) of the Act specifies ". . . the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat". . . ". Further, Section 20 (1) (ii) of the Act specifies ". . . the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat". No doubt, the proviso says that no case shall be referred to Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. No doubt, this is the safeguard which is provided for as against the exercise of power of reference under sub-clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of the proviso referred to supra. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute in the present case, O. P. No. 260/2000 on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad already had been referred to the Lok Adalat. At this stage, the present Transfer C. M. P. under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed. The regularity or otherwise of the procedure which had been adopted by the Presiding Officer in referring the matter to the Lok Adalat need not be further gone into in the present matter. However, the fact remains that the reference was already made. Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act specifies that where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the present Presiding Officer is a different Presiding Officer and inasmuch as already a reference was made, the petitioner definitely is at liberty to express his unwillingness and in case no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, it is needless to say that the record shall be returned to the same Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. However, at this stage, to get the matter transferred by invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my considered opinion, cannot be sustained. However, at this stage, to get the matter transferred by invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my considered opinion, cannot be sustained. No doubt, several contentions had been advanced by both the counsel touching merits and demerits of the matter making serious allegations and counter-allegations which need not be recorded at all while disposing of the present Transfer C. M. P. It is made clear that the present Lok Adalat shall consider the matter i. e. , O. P. No. 260/2000 at present on its file in the light of Section 20 (5) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in this regard in accordance with law and subsequent thereto it is needless to say that the concerned Presiding Officer shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Except expressing the said opinion, in the present Transfer C. M. P. , no other relief can be granted and accordingly with these observations the Transfer C. M. P. is disposed of. No order as to costs.