Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 782 (RAJ)

Ranveer Kumar Mahiya v. Narendra Kumar

2023-04-06

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner (’PLA’), whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of sum of Rs.60,000/- within a period of one week to the respondent, failing which, he was required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date the application was filed. 2. The application was filed before the PLA with the submissions that an agreement was entered into between the parties for setting up Solar Plant of 5 KW. Under the terms of the contract, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner, however, allegations were made that the petitioner failed to do the needful and therefore, he may be directed to accept the balance payment and do the needful. 3. A reply to the application was filed denying the submissions made and indicating that on account of non-cooperation by the father-in-law of the applicant, the plant could not be set up and that the averments made in the application were incorrect. 4. The PLA, after attempting to settle the issue mutually, ultimately came to the conclusion that on account of involvement of the father-in-law of the applicant, no direction could be given to the third party and came to the conclusion that as a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to the petitioner, as he has done basic work of Rs.40,000/-, he should refund a sum of Rs.60,000/-and passed the order as indicated herein-before. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the PLA had no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned. 6. Submissions have been made that the petitioner had specifically denied having received the sum as indicated and that he had only received Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the direction issued regarding refund of Rs.60,000/- is wholly unjustified. 7. Submissions have been made that it was required of the PLA to seek evidence and in absence thereof, the matter could not have been decided and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside. 8. The record of the PLA was summoned by the Court, which has been received. 9. 7. Submissions have been made that it was required of the PLA to seek evidence and in absence thereof, the matter could not have been decided and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside. 8. The record of the PLA was summoned by the Court, which has been received. 9. A perusal of the record indicates that there is contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement, wherein on the one hand, it has been denied that he has received any payment and in the same breath, it has been admitted that he has been received Rs.50,000/-. 10. Besides the above, before the PLA, an agreement was signed by the parties settling the dispute on the applicant making payment of Rs.45,521/-, the cheque was deposited by the applicant before the PLA, which aspect clearly fortifies that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the settlement as noticed by the PLA failed on account of the involvement of the third party i.e. father-in-law of the applicant, who did not agree to provide passage for setting up of plant. 11. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is factually incorrect, the order passed by the PLA in the circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted on the purported plea sought to be raised by the petitioner. 12. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.