HEMANTHA KUMAR versus R. MAHADEVAIAH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
HEMANTHA KUMAR
v.
R. MAHADEVAIAH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4108 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Or.XXIII, r.3 – Consent decree
– Grant of – The original plaintiff instituted suit for specific
performance of the agreement to sell – Before the Trial Court plaintiff
and defendants submitted an application under Or.XXXIII, r.3 and
requested to pass consent decree as parties have settled the dispute
– Trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat passed
the consent decree – Defendants filed writ petition before the High
Court challenging the consent decree on ground of fraud – High
Court set aside the consent decree, observing that counsel for the
plaintiff had mislead the trial Court in obtaining decree while
referring the matter to Lok adalat r/w the compromise – Plaintiff
preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: Merely
because the trial court have referred the matter to Lok Adalat that
alone cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of the consent
decree – No fraud committed – High Court has committed grave
error in setting aside the consent decree passed in the Lok Adalat –
Judgment and order of High Court quashed and set aside – Consent
decree passed by the Lok Adalat restored.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4108
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 35073 of 2015 (GM-
RES).
Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Ms. Agam Sharma, Nanda Kumar K. B.,
Shivashankar H. Manur, Ms. Shweta S. Manur for M/s Nuli & Nuli,
Advs. for the Appellant.
S. N. Bhat, Sr. Adv., D. P. Chaturvedi, Tarun Kumar Thakur,
Ms. Parvati Bhat, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
.
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 117
117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ
Petition No. 35073 of 2015 by which the High Court has set aside the
consent decree passed in the Lok Adalat and consequently has restored
the original suit, original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under:-
2.1 That the appellant herein – original plaintiff instituted Original
Suit No. 94 of 2006 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at
Kunigal for specific performance of the agreement to sell/contract. The
suit originally was filed against three defendants, however, one of the
defendants – defendant No. 3 came to be deleted by the plaintiff. The
suit came up for hearing before the learned Trial Court on 18.08.2007.
The plaintiff and the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an
application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, in which it was stated that
the parties have settled the dispute and it was requested to pass a consent
decree. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 admitted execution of the agreement
to sell dated 26.04.2005 in favour of the plaintiff and also admitted receipt
of Rs. 30,000/- towards the part sale consideration. In the application
under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, it was specifically stated that the
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have received the remaining sale consideration
amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff. Therefore, it was requested to
pass the decree as prayed for in the suit as well as in terms of the
compromise petition.
2.2 The said consent compromise/compromise deed/compromise
petition was signed by the Advocates for the respective parties. However,
instead of decreeing the suit passing a consent decree though requested,
the learned Trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat. Before the
Lok Adalat, which was presided over by the very learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Dn.), Kunigal, the Advocates for the plaintiff as well as the original
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 remained present and prayed to pass a consent
decree as per the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
Consequently, by judgment and decree dated 27.08.2007, the learned
Trial Court passed the consent decree.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
2.3 That thereafter the original plaintiff filed the Execution Petition
No. 88 of 2013 to execute the consent decree and for seeking execution
of the sale deed in his favour. That thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 and
2 filed the writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.
35073 of 2015 challenging the consent decr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.