@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.@mdashHeard Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.
2. Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner would maintain that the respondent had taken the consent of the petitioner by coercion and also by threats and hence the said consent is no consent at all. The learned Counsel also would submit that in I.A. No. 158/2005 an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC had been obtained in Vacation Court and the matter was posted to 26-6-2005 and urgent notice was served on the petitioner on 31-5-2005 and the Court Amin filed report on 10-6-2005 and on the very same day the respondent sought for referring the matter to Lok Adalat for recording compromise and on the request of the respondent the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and on the same day the award was made. In the light of these facts the Counsel would contend that it is a fit case where an opportunity to be given, at least on imposition of certain conditions, to the petitioner to contest the matter.
3. On the contrary Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent would submit that the theory of threats or obtaining the award by coercion, are all introduced only for the purpose of getting the award set aside. The same was made voluntarily. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and also pointed out that the matter was filed on the file of the Vacation Judge. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the date 10-6-2005 and further pointed out to the plaintiff and defendant and Advocate for plaintiff and Advocate for defendant duly signing the same. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise this plea of coercion or the plea of threats cannot be gone into at this stage. The Counsel placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in
4. Heard the Counsel.
5. Several of the facts are not in controversy. The relevant portion of the award passed before the Lok Adalat at Warangal (Civil) dated 10-6-2005 in O.S. No. 250/2005, reads as hereunder:
The Suit has been filed for seeking relief of Recovery of Money.
The value of the suit Rs. 4,94,867/-
Plaint presented on 26.05.2005
After negotiations and conciliation between the parties, the claims of the parties are settled as follows and decree in the following terms is passed:
The plaintiff, Defendant and their Counsel present before Lok Adalat.
The defendant agreed to pay suit claim amount of Rs. 4,94,867/- with suit costs to an extent of Rs. 6,000/- totaling to Rs. 5,00,867/- to the plaintiff in instalments @ Rs. 3,500/- p.m. from 5th day of July, 2005 upto 5th December, 2008 and @ Rs. 4,000/- from 5th day of July , 2009 till full realization of the amount by depositing in the court to the credit of the suit. The plaintiff agreed for the same.
The defendant admit that in default of the single instalment the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount by filing execution petition against the defendant.
The suit is disposed of in terms of the compromise.
The award inasmuch as passed accordingly.
The court fee on plaint shall be refunded to the PLAINTIFF.
6. As already referred to supra, the compromise petition dated 10-6- 2005 was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC which was duly signed by the plaintiff and the defendant and also Advocate for plaintiff and Advocate for defendant and the contents thereof read as hereunder:
The petitioner and the respondent have compromised the matter outside the Hon''ble court at the advice of the elders, on the following terms and conditions.
1. The plaintiff and the defendant are related to each other. The defendant admits that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15-2-2003; Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22-8-2003 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 8-7-2004 from the plaintiff and had executed three different promissory notes in favour of plaintiff as collateral security agreeing to repay the said loan amounts together with interest @ 2% per month as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant also admits the suit claim of the plaintiff and he has no objection for passing the decree for Rs. 4,94,867/- with suit costs to an extent of Rs. 6,000/- in favour of plaintiff, totaling to Rs. 5,00,867/-.
2. The defendant is unable pay the decretal amount of Rs. 5,00,867/- due to his financial conditions and requested the plaintiff to pay in instalments @ Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. Three Thousand & Five Hundred only per month) from 5th day of July 2005 upto December, 2008 by depositing in the Court to the credit of the suit and @ Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. Four Thousand only) from January, 2009 onwards till final realisation of decretal amount. The plaintiff agreed for the same. The defendant admit that in default of the single instalment the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount by execution petition against the defendant. The defendant admits that the plaintiff is at liberty to obtain attachment orders by filing Execution Petition to execute the decree for recovery of decretal amount by attaching his salary directing his salary disbursing officer i.e., Senior DPO/BG/SE/Bill Unit No. 203, Sanchalan Bhavan, 5th Floor, Secunderabad to deduct a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month upto December, 2008 and @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the month of January, 2009 till final realisation of decretal amount and to send to the SB account No. 01190007167 of the plaintiff with State Bank of Hyderabad, Kazipet Branch.
Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon''ble Court be pleased decree the suit in terms of above compromise, for the ends of justice.
7. The main ground of attack is that the consent was obtained by coercion and threats and hence it is not free consent at all. In the decision referred (1) supra, the Apex Court while dealing with the nature of the binding effect of the award of the Lok Adalat held that though a Lok Adalat award is not the result of the contest on merits it is as equal and on par with a decree of compromise and will have the same binding effect and be conclusive and it is final and permanent and is equivalent to a decree executable and is an ending to the litigation among the parties. It was also further held that a judgment by consent is as effective as estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the Court exercises its mind on a contested case and the Court''s attempt should be to give life and enforceability to compromise award and not to defeat it on technical grounds.
8. The plea of coercion or obtaining of award on threats predominantly is a question of fact. On such grounds it cannot be said that when a settlement was arrived at by the parties before the Lok Adalat, the same is vitiated. Hence, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.
