Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 71 (HP)

MOHAN SINGH v. FINDI DEVI

2004-04-13

A.K.GOEL

body2004
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—By this common judgment, CMPMO Nos. 161 and 162 of 2003 are proposed to be disposed of. 2. With a view to properly understand the controversy and appreciate the submissions urged on behalf of parties, brief facts giving rise to these petitions need to be noted. These are:— 3. Findi Dev, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" filed a suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for recovery of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- against Mohan Singh, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant". Record of the suit shows that after filing of the written statement, case was taken up before Permanent Lok Adalat for reconciliation on 9.11.2002 when following order was passed:— "9.11.2002 : Present :—Parties in person. After conciliation efforts made by the Bench of Permanent Lok Adalat, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. The defendant is ready and willing to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.1.2002. Offer is acceptable to the plaintiff. Statement of both the parties to this effect recorded. (Emphasis supplied) In view of the statements of the parties, the plaintiff is granted monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- w.e.f. 1.1.2002. File after completion, be consigned to records. Announced 9.11.2002. Sd/- Members, Permanent Lok Adalat Sd/- Chairman (District Judge) Permanent Lok Adalat." 4. In terms of this order, plaintiff sued out execution before the trial court. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has filed CMPMO No. 162 of 2003 against the order dated 9.11.2002 whereby maintenance was allowed. A grievance is made that as per provisions of Section 22-C(7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", terms of possible settlement between the parties were not formulated, as such, there was no question of any such settlement ever having been signed by defendant Mohan Singh. In this behalf, reliance is placed by Mr. Bawa, on Sections 22-C(7) and 22-C(8) of the Act. According to him, condition precedent for passing an order was formulation of terms of the settlement of dispute between the parties and then the same being given to the parties for their observations. In the event of parties reaching an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they were required to sign such settlement. According to him, condition precedent for passing an order was formulation of terms of the settlement of dispute between the parties and then the same being given to the parties for their observations. In the event of parties reaching an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they were required to sign such settlement. It is only thereafter that Permanent Lok Adalat could pass award in terms thereof and also is required to furnish copies of the same to the parties. A perusal of the trial Court file shows that no terms of settlement were formulated. Even if it is assumed that formulation of the terms of settlement is not necessary, still parties signatures should have been there. A perusal of the statement of plaintiff dated 9.11.2002, shows that her signatures were there. Whereas signatures of Mohan Singh defendant do not appear in the terms of settlement. 5. In this behalf, it may also be appropriate to observe that where no settlement is arrived, then Permanent Lok Adalat is duty bound to dispose of the matter in terms of Section 22-C(7) and (8) of the Act. For ready reference, these sub-sections are extracted hereinbelow:— "(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of the opinion that there exists elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute." 6. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Shirshoo, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is vital and material omission on the part of learned Court below firstly having not formulated the terms of possible settlement and then having not got it signed from the defendant. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Shirshoo, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is vital and material omission on the part of learned Court below firstly having not formulated the terms of possible settlement and then having not got it signed from the defendant. He, however, hastened to add that since statements of both the parties have been recorded, omission to formulate the terms of settlement and then getting it signed, does not go to the root of the case. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of both these petitions. 7. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, such plea cannot be accepted. Purpose of formulating the terms of possible settlement between the parties and then getting it signed from the parties, is that they understand as to how the matter is being reconciled. At the same time, if the terms of the settlement are acceptable to the parties, then in token of acceptance of such terms, parties are required to put their signature on the same in acknowledgement of these terms. And thereafter agreed order has to be passed by Permanent Lok Adalat. A party is always free not to agree to the proposed terms of compromise. If that is the situation, then sub-section (8) of the Act, supra, comes into play which enjoins a duty upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to dispose of the matter as envisaged under it. 8. In the face of the above noted legal position, and statement of the defendant having admittedly not been signed by him (the defendant), order dated 9.11.2002 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat of Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehar in Civil Suit No. 3-R/1 of 2002, titled Findi Devi v. Mohan Singh, cannot stand the best judicial scrutiny and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. As a further fall-out of it, there is no question of its execution being levied by the plaintiff against the defendant. Resultantly, proceedings in Execution Petition No. 5-R/10 of 2003, titled Findi Devi v. Mohan Singh, are also quashed. 9. Since record of the trial Court is here, parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear in the Court at Rampur Bushehar on 22.5.2004. Resultantly, proceedings in Execution Petition No. 5-R/10 of 2003, titled Findi Devi v. Mohan Singh, are also quashed. 9. Since record of the trial Court is here, parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear in the Court at Rampur Bushehar on 22.5.2004. Trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter from the stage of filing of the written statement, (of course, without being prejudiced either by anything said in this judgment or in its order dated 9.11.2002), strictly in accordance with law. It is clarified here that in case parties want the matter to be settled by the Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat, anything said in this judgment as well as in order dated 9.11.2002, will not come in their way, and in such a situation, trial Court will follow the letter of law and dispose of the case as per law at its earlier. Since the date has been fixed by this Court, no fresh notice will be issued to the parties. Even if the Presiding Officer is not holding the Court on the date fixed, then it shall be the duty of the parties to appear on the date(s) when the case is listed for proper orders. 10. Both the petitions are disposed of after those were formally admitted and taken up at the joint request of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the controversy involved in it. Interim order(s), if any, passed from time to time in both cases, shall stand vacated forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Registry will ensure that records are transmitted to the Court below, so as to reach there well before the date fixed.