Compromise arrived at and duly recorded before Lok Adalat in the presence of the parties and their counsel cannot be challenged alleging lack of consent or free will. Karnataka High Court. 13 June 2019
Touseef Ahmed v. Trinity Christian Association Trust. Writ Petition 113583 of 2015, decided on 13 June, 2019. Justice Aravind Kumar.
Judgment Link:
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/279450/1/WP113583-15-13-06-2019.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 4. Having regard to the above facts when the case papers are perused, it would disclose that when the matter was taken before Lok Adalath, not only petitioners- defendants were present but also their learned advocates were also present before the Lok Adalath. Both parties have affixed their signatures to the ordersheet which is also counter signed by their advocates. Infact, in the Lok Adalath, contents of the compromise petition has been read over to both parties present before the Court in kannada language by the Members of Lok Adalath and only after parties having understood the contents of the compromise petition and admitted it to be true and it was not entered into under duress, the members of the Lok Adalath have recorded a finding that terms of the compromise is lawful and accordingly, decree has been ordered to be drawn in terms of the compromise petition.
5. Though Mr. Vittal S Telli, learned counsel appearing for petitioners/defendants would contend that there was no joint memo, two glaring facts which remain unanswered are (i) when the matter was referred to Lok Adalath by the learned judge on 15:10:2014, defendants wee present before court; (ii) contents of the compromise petition was read over by the members of the Lok Adalath to both parties who were present before the Lok Adalath and only on being satisfied that parties have entered the compromise lawfully and only after they have understood contents of the compromise petition, it has been taken on record and decree is ordered to be drawn in terms of compromise petition. As such, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner would not hold water and it is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.
Also see. Sharanabasappa vs Ramulu. Writ Petition 226358 of 2020 decided on 1 March 2021. Justice Nagaprasanna, Kalburgi bench.
