Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 756 (HP)

Amar Nath v. Ganga Devi

2019-06-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is to quash and set aside the Award dated 09.12.2017, passed by the National Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No. 200-1 of 2017. The order impugned reads as under : “Vide separate statement in writing, the defendant-Amar Nath has stated that he has compromised the matter with the plaintiff, according to compromise deed Ext. CA and has no objection, of the suit is decreed as per compromise deed Ext. CA. Plaintiff has also stated vice his separate statement, on record, duly identified by Sh. K.K. Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel, that he has heard, read and understood the compromise deed Ext. CA and according to which suit may be decreed. In view of the statements of the parties and compromise deed Ext. CA, the suit is hereby disposed of as amicably settled in terms of compromise deed Ex. CA. Let compromise decree be passed accordingly subject to fulfillment of provision of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Registration Act, 1908. Compromise deed Ext. CA shall form part of the compromise decree. File after its due completion be consigned to record room.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned Award dated 09.12.2017, passed by the National Lok Adalat is bad in law as the alleged compromise entered into on 24.11.2017 was perverse and illegal. According to him, the unilateral terms of the impugned compromise were not binding upon the petitioner. The suit land was his self acquired property and he could not be called upon to surrender the same in terms of the compromise. As per him, the compromise was a sheer abuse of the relationship between him and his son, which relation was exploited by his son. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the filing of the present petition was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He has argued that the compromise was entered into between the parties out of their own free will and volition and the same was not a result of any fraud or misrepresentation. According to him, the petition has been filed just to wriggle out of the compromise, which the petitioner entered into with the respondent with open mind. He has argued that the compromise was entered into between the parties out of their own free will and volition and the same was not a result of any fraud or misrepresentation. According to him, the petition has been filed just to wriggle out of the compromise, which the petitioner entered into with the respondent with open mind. He has further argued that as this was not a case of fraud or deceit, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the Award passed by the National Lok Adalat in the present proceedings. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 5. The Award was passed by the National Lok Adalat on the basis of a compromise deed referred therein. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the Civil Suit was listed before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. III, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur on 24.11.2017, on which date, petitioner-Amar Nath made a statement in the Court that he had compromised the matter with Ganga Devi, the plaintiff therein as per Ex.-CA and he had no objection in case the suit of Ganga Devi was decreed in terms of the said compromise Ex.-CA. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the recording of the said statement of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court. He has also not disputed the signatures of petitioner-Amar Nath below the said statement. In other words, it has not been disputed that Amar Nath did appear before the learned Trial Court on 24.11.2017 and made a statement on oath that he had entered into a compromise with the present respondent in terms of Ex.-CA and that he had no objection in case suit of the respondent, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court was decreed in terms of Ex.-CA. 6. The Award has been passed by the National Lok Adalat on the basis of the said compromise deed Ex.-CA on 09.12.2017. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that between 24.11.2017 and 09.12.2017, any application was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Civil Court that his statement recorded on 24.11.2017 was a result of coercion, deceit or misrepresentation and that he was not bound by it. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that between 24.11.2017 and 09.12.2017, any application was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Civil Court that his statement recorded on 24.11.2017 was a result of coercion, deceit or misrepresentation and that he was not bound by it. In other words, when the Award was passed by the learned National Lok Adalat on 09.12.2017, there was no challenge to the statement of the petitioner, as was recorded before the learned Civil Court by him. 7. In this factual background, in my considered view, the filing of the present petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has not been able to make out any case that the Award passed by the National Lok Adalat was a result of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Except the bald assertion of the petitioner that his statement on 24.11.2017 recorded before the learned Trial Court was a result of misrepresentation, he has not placed any material on record to substantiate the said allegation. 8. As I have already mentioned above, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that between 24.11.2017 and 09.12.2017 any application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court that his statement recorded before the learned Trial Court on 24.11.2017 was a result of fraud, coercion or mis-representation. Therefore, as the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate that the Award passed by the National Lok Adalat is a result of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, as has been argued in this petition, the same being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 9. Herein, this Court wants to add a word of caution also. The National Lok Adalats are performing humongous task of settling the disputes between the litigants. Before the National Lok Adalats, the disputes are settled more out of faith and trust, than on law and legal parameters. If litigations of the present kind, wherein the Awards passed by the National Lok Adalats are assailed on whimsical grounds are encouraged, then it will be extremely difficult for the Lok Adalats to perform their duties and settle the disputes between the parties amicably. If litigations of the present kind, wherein the Awards passed by the National Lok Adalats are assailed on whimsical grounds are encouraged, then it will be extremely difficult for the Lok Adalats to perform their duties and settle the disputes between the parties amicably. In view of the said observations, as this Court is satisfied that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner, which shall be deposited by him with this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, on an application, which may be filed by the respondent, the said amount shall be released in her favour. To ascertain as to whether the cost has been paid by the petitioner by depositing the same in the Registry of this Court, the case shall be listed for this limited purpose before the Court on 22nd July, 2019. Petition stands dismissed in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.