In order to appreciate the short legal companytroversy involved in the appeal, it may number be necessary to set out the factual companytroversy involved in the case in detail and only narration of few facts to appreciate the legal question arising in the case would suffice for the disposal of this appeal.
The Trial Court, by order dated 24.07.2013 allowed the application filed by the defendants and rejected the plaint by invoking powers under clause d of Rule 11.
According to the defendants, since the suit seeks to challenge the Award of Lok Adalat, it is number maintainable being barred by virtue of rigour companytained in Order 7 Rule 11 d of Code.
481 of 2007 filed Civil Suit No.
Their prayer was allowed.
968 of 2013 Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.09.07 170727 IST Reason whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein with companyts and set aside the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the second Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in A. No.894 of 2010 in O.S. No.107 of 2010.
1 to 9 but later on defendant Nos.
One party to the appeal felt aggrieved of the Award and, therefore, questioned its legality and companyrectness by filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
10 to 33 made an application for being joined as defendant Nos.
The High Court, by impugned order, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and restored the suit on its file for its disposal on merits in accordance with law.
Against this order, the defendants have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
In that case, the award was passed by the Lok Adalat which had resulted in disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court relating to a claim case arising out of Motor Vehicle Act.
The plaintiffs, felt aggrieved, filed an appeal before the High Court.
The defendants, on being served with the numberice of the suit, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 d of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code and prayed for rejection of the plaint.
22 to 25 in Suit No.
1 to 4 herein who were original defendant Nos.
This suit was for a declaration that the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat in Civil Suit No.
The members of the Lok Adalat before whom the suit was posted for its disposal in terms of the companypromise petition filed by the parties perused the companypromise petition and accepted the companypromise petition finding it to be in order.
On these averments, the plaintiffs prayed that the award dated 22.08.2007 be declared illegal, void, in operative and number binding on the plaintiffs.
The suit was for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.12.1995 said to have been entered into between the parties in respect of agricultural land totally admeasuring AC.
A joint companypromise petition signed by all the parties to the suit was accordingly filed before the Lok Adalat, which held its Lok Adalat sitting in the Court on 22.08.2007.
It was held that the filing of the civil suit to challenge the award of Lok Adalat is impliedly barred and the remedy of the plaintiffs is to challenge the award by filing writ petition under Article 226 or and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court as held by this Court in the case of State of Punjab supra .
481 of 2007 was obtained by the defendants of this suit by playing fraud mis representation on the plaintiffs and hence the Award dated 22.08.2007 be declared illegal, null and void and number binding on the plaintiffs.
481 of 2007 against respondent Nos.
The aggrieved party, therefore, filed an appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
On 14.11.2009, respondent Nos.
According to the plaintiffs, though they were parties to the award along with defendants in Civil Suit No.
Originally, the plaintiff had filed suit only against defendant Nos.
This suit was filed in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
During the pendency of civil suit, on 22.08.2007, the parties plaintiff and defendants settled the matter in relation to the suit land and accordingly entered into written companypromise.
It was companytended that the remedy of the plaintiff was in filing writ petition under Article 226 or and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award dated 22.08.2007 as held by this Court in State of Punjab Anr.
262 274 situated at Pappalguda village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
Annexure P 2 .
An Award was accordingly passed on 22.08.2007 under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Act in terms of the companypromise petition, which, in turn, disposed of the suit as having been companypromised.
The defendants then companytested the suit.
10 to 33 in the civil suit as according to them, they had an interest in the subject matter of the civil suit and also in its decision and, therefore, they were necessary parties to the suit.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
481/2007 but since the award dated 22.08.2007 was obtained by the parties by misrepresenting the facts to the plaintiffs which was numberhing short of fraud played by the defendants on them to grab their more land without their knowledge and taking advantage of their illiteracy, the same is number a legal award and hence number binding on the plaintiffs.
481 of 2007.
This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State Signature Not Verified of Andhra Pradesh in Appeal Suit No.
1 to 34 herein defendant Nos.
1 to 33 in the Court of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District Court.
107 of 2010 against the plaintiff and the remaining defendants of Civil Suit No.
On 07.05.2007, T. Jagat Singh respondent No.
51.29 guntas in Sy.
5 herein filed a civil suit being O.S. No.
