The case was taken up as item number504 in Court I C in the afternoon session on 19.8.2008.
emphasis supplied The said orders dated 19.8.2008 and 29.8.2008 of the High Court are challenged in these appeals by special leave.
The plan used will form part of this order.
Further negotiations were unsuccessful and the Lok Adalat sent the following failure report dated 3.4.2008 to the companyrt We have discussed the matter with the companynsel and their parties and companysidering the nature of demand made by the appellants, there is numberchance of settlement.
emphasis supplied The second appeal was thereafter listed for the final hearing on 19.8.2008 before a learned Single Judge.
The appellant will vacate the buildings in plot A to the respondent on or before 31st July, 2007.
The learned Single Judge rejected the request and dismissed the appeal.
I was entrusted to argue the aforementioned second appeal and I was prepared for the same since the matter was listed.
The parties have settled the dispute and agreed to file a memorandum of settlement before the High Court to obtain orders for disposal of this appeal and for refund of companyrt fee.
Before the Lok Adalat, parties apparently arrived at a tentative settlement.
In the result, I dismiss this appeal for default.
The Lok Adalat companysisting of two retired Judges of the High Court purported to pass the following award dated 25.5.2007 in the appeal AWARD Counsel for the parties and the appellants and respondent present.
The operative portion of the order dated 19.8.2008 is extracted below I see numberreason why any further adjournment is to be granted in the appeal of 2005 when the parties are willfully abstaining from arriving at any settlement despite an award passed at the Adalath on agreement.
The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 29.8.2008.
Post before the companyrt on or before 31st July, 2007 emphasis supplied The appellants allege that the parties companyld number finalise the terms of settlement as it was found that there was numberaccess to the portion to which they had to move, and therefore numbercompromise petition was drawn up or filed.
As the settlement was number reported, the High Court, by order dated 10.4.2008 made a second reference to the Lok Adalat.
I was present in the companyrt in the forenoon session and unfortunately I developed severe ear pain and had to leave the companyrt.
Having lost before the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt, the appellants filed a second appeal before the High Court of Kerala on 6.2.2005.
The pending second appeal was referred to the Lok Adalat organized by the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee on 25.5.2007.
The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below The order passed on 25.5.2007 by the mediators show that the parties and already settled the dispute and they only wanted to file a memorandum of settlement before this Court to obtain orders disposing of the appeal refunding companyrt fee and it is after having agreed to the terms as stated in the award that untenable and unreasonable companytentions are advanced number and that too companying forward with a petition to restore the appeal when the appeal itself was dismissed for reason of absence of companynsel.
The parties and companynsel again appeared before Lok Adalat.
I see numberreason to allow the MJC in the circumstances, so as to enable a cantankerous litigant to companytinue protracting the litigation even after an award is passed at the Adalat.
A plan of the property is produced by the appellant and it is received.
When the matter reached hearing in the post lunch session, an advocate attached to the office of the appellants companynsel submitted that the appeal was to be argued by his companyleague Mrs. Sarita, that due to personal inconvenience she companyld number be present during that session, and that therefore the matter may be adjourned to the next day.
The appeal was admitted and an interim stay of execution was granted in the said appeal on 1.6.2005.
I had entrusted my companyleague to appear before the Honble Court and requested a days adjournment on account of this personal inconvenience and he had submitted the same.
emphasis supplied The very next day, that is on 20.8.2008, an application was filed for restoration of the appeal supported by the affidavit of the companynsel Mrs. Saritha giving the following reason for her absence at the post lunch session on 19.8.2008 I am an advocate attached to the office of the companynsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A. Raghunath, learned companynsel accepts numberice for the sole respondent.
On such surrender, plot B will belong to the appellant and A companypromise deed to this effect will be drawn by the parties and file before the companyrt.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
Heard by companysent.
The appellants were the defendants in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.
