8 April 2022 10:30 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by courts and Lok Adalat for ascertaining the genuineness of the parties, before allowing a compromise decree, filed before it. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a petition filed by a party, claiming that its interest in the suit property was compromised by way of a compromise entered into...
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by courts and Lok Adalat for ascertaining the genuineness of the parties, before allowing a compromise decree, filed before it.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a petition filed by a party, claiming that its interest in the suit property was compromised by way of a compromise entered into by a person before the Lok Adalat claiming to be its power of attorney holder, without its knowledge.
The Court said that is has been coming across several matters relating to such compromise before the Lok- Adalat which are challenged by way of writ petitions. "Hence, I also deem it fit to issue general directions in respect of such matters which are referred to Lok-Adalat and compromise recorded."
The directions are as follows :
(i) When a compromise is filed before the Court in terms of the decision in Smt. Akkubai vs. Shri Venkatrao and Others [ILR 2014 KAR 2051] (supra) it is for the Court to record the compromise and not refer the matter to the Lok- Adalat.
(ii) It is only if there is no settlement arrived at before the Court and the parties request for the matter to be referred to Lok-Adalat to enable a settlement then in such event the parties are to be referred to the Lok-Adalat and in the event of a compromise being arrived at before the Lok-Adalat, the same could be recorded by the Lok- Adalat.
(iii) When the matter is referred to Lok-Adalat, separate order sheets would have to be opened and maintained by the said Lok-Adalat and the order sheet of the Court in the suit cannot be used by the Lok-Adalat.
(iv) The trial Court and or the Lok-Adalat while recording compromise is required to ascertain if the parties are present personally as also to ascertain and verify their identities by production of suitable documentary proof.
(v) In the event of a power of attorney appearing, it would be the bounden duty of the Court or the Lok-Adalat to ascertain if the concerned party has been served with notice.
(vi) The Court as also the Lok-Adalat would always have to be suspicious if the party were to enter appearance even before service of notice which is a red flag that there is something that is fishy in the matter.
(vii) When recording a compromise being entered into by a power of attorney, the original of the power of attorney is required to be examined by the Court and the Lok-Adalat and necessary endorsement made in the order to that effect and the original power of attorney returned to the parties.
(viii) As far as possible the trial Court and or the Lok-Adalat to secure the presence of the party and obtain signature of such party rather than the power of attorney.
(ix) The Trial Courts shall ensure that proper and acceptable proof of identity of the parties to proceedings as mandated by the Government for various purposes (such as Aadhar Card, Driving Licence, Passport Copy, Election Identity card, etc.,) are obtained as a matter of rule.
Case Title: Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 103766 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Date Of Order: 31st Day Of March, 2022
Appearance: Advocate Mahesh Wodeyar For Petitioner; Senior Advocate Padmanabha Mahale, A/W Advocate Pruthvi K.S For R1 & R2
Click Here To Read/Download Order