Or. VII, rule 11 of C.P.C.- Suit to set aside Lok Adalat on ground of fraud & collusion - Trial court returned the plaint as not maintainable - only remedy is to file writ - Their Lordship held that Whether or not the appellant is justified in his claim, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud, are matters to be examined by the Court below. As the power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to be exercised by the civil court only if the suit appears, from the statement in the plaint, to be barred by law, the court below erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that a civil suit is not maintainable. The order under appeal is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the appellants claim that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud. The Court below shall adjudicate the suit on its merits, and in accordance with law. - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports




They sought a decree in their favour, and against the
defendants, to declare para 18 of the compromise recorded in O.S.
No.481 of 2007 before the Lok Adalat dated 22.08.2007, in so far
as it related to land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts of land in Sy.
Nos.271, 272 and 273 shown to have created rights in favour of
defendant No.31 i.e., M/s. Bhargavi Constructions represented by
Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, as nonest in law for having been
obtained by fraud and collusion, by playing fraud upon the
plaintiffs; and for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, especially defendant No.31, their agents, servants,
employees etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule A, B and
C properties. =


The Court below had rejected the plaint solely on
the ground that a civil suit cannot be filed, and the plaintiffs
remedy is only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether or not the appellant is
justified in his claim, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by
fraud, are matters to be examined by the Court below.  As the
power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is to be exercised
by the civil court only if the suit appears, from the statement in the
plaint, to be barred by law, the court below erred in rejecting the
plaint on the ground that a civil suit is not maintainable.  The
order under appeal is set aside.  We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the appellants
claim that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud.  The
Court below shall adjudicate the suit on its merits, and in
accordance with law.
      The order, under challenge in this appeal, is set aside and
the appeal is allowed with costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)