Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1175 (AP)

Alapati Vivekananda v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.

2005-12-12

C.V.RAMULU

body2005
( 1 ) THIS revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in PLC. No. 76 of 2002, dt. 28-09-2002, before the Lok Adalat, Prakasam District at ongole. ( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioners herein obtained a loan from the Karur Vysya Bank limited, respondent herein. At pre-litigation stage, the dispute was raised before the Lok adalat. The Lok Adalat issued notices and pursuant thereto, the petitioners appeared before the Lok Adalat and agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,32,099/- (Rs. One lakh thirty two thousand and ninety nine only) on or before 31-01 -. 2003 to the Bank and in case of default, the Bank was entitled for a decree for Rs. 1. 32,099/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the award passed by the Lok adalat is contrary to law and is without any application or memorandum of compromise between the parties. An application for compromise etc. , is mandatory for passing the award under Section 20 of Legal Services authorities Act, 1987 ("the Act", for short ). It is also stated that no opportunity was given to the parties before they were made to agree. The learned counsel further contends that absolutely no opportunity was given to the petitioners to defend their case and that the lok Adalat is having jurisdiction only where a case is pending before any competent Court, and it is settled only when either of the parties or any one of the parties makes a request as required under Section 19 (5) or Section 20 of the Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the Lok adalat submitted that absolutely there are no grounds made out to interfere with the said order since the petitioners have agreed to pay the said amount and it is a case of pre- litigation as contemplated under Section 19 (5) of the Act. ( 5 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the order under revision and other material made available on record. ( 6 ) IT is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. which read as under:"19 (5 ). ( 5 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the order under revision and other material made available on record. ( 6 ) IT is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. which read as under:"19 (5 ). A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of- (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any court for which the Lok adalat is organized. Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. ""20. Cognizance of cases by Lok adalats:- (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 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. " ( 7 ) A reading of Section 19 (5) (ii) would clearly indicate that in a pre-litigation case whenever a Lok Adalat is satisfied that the matter is within its jurisdiction to determine, it can arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. In fact, this is one such case and parties were put on notice and they were present before Lok Adalat. Since the matter is falling within its jurisdiction and is not brought before any Court, the matter was rightly taken up by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any procedural irregularity committed by the Lok Adalat. Section 20 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case. Since the matter is falling within its jurisdiction and is not brought before any Court, the matter was rightly taken up by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any procedural irregularity committed by the Lok Adalat. Section 20 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case. ( 8 ) APART from this, a bare reading of the order would indicate that the petitioners herein have agreed to pay certain amounts due to the Bank and have also signed the agreement as required under the law. It is not their case that they have not been given any notice or called to the Court to enquire into this pre- litigation case. Once they are put on notice and asked to attend the Court for deciding this pre-litigation case and once they agreed to pay the amount, it cannot be said that the procedure was not followed as contemplated under the Act and that they were not given proper opportunity to defend themselves. Once the petitioners admit having taken the loan and agreed to pay the same that itself shows that they were put on notice and there is no necessity of any further defence being taken in this regard. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.