M/s Triplaar School of Learning & Anr. vs M/s Kalyani Ads & Anr.

The petitioners herein are the J.Drs. They filed Execution Application vide E.A.No.59/2021 in E.P.No.393/2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur under section 47 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC to dismiss the execution petition and raise the attachment of execution petition schedule property. The said application has been considered and same was dismissed with the following observations:

Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioners/J.Drs and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for resopdnents/D.Hrs.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made his submissions that though the petitioners has made their objections under Section 47 CPC, learned trial Court ought to have decided the above said objections in terms of the provisions of the Act. But surprisingly, the said petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to raise the same during the enquiry of the main E.P. The petitioners have mainly raised an objection that as per Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 2002 (Act No.37 of 2002) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have pecuniary jurisdiction to pass award where the value of the property in dispute exceeds rupees ten lakhs. In fact the Court has passed an award for Rs.50,00,000/- which is beyond the jurisdiction. Hence without having jurisdiction, the Lok Adalat passed the award and it is non-est in the eye of law. Therefore the award is not executable and it is liable to be dismissed. When the very objection is raised with regard to executability of the award, the trial Court ought to have decided the said objection before proceeding with the Execution Petition but surprisingly the same was dismissed with an observation that the said objections can be raised at the stage of enquiry of the main E.P., which is not permissible and contrary to law. Once the party has raised an objection with regard to maintainability and executability of the award as the same has been contrary to the provisions of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act 2002, the said objection has to be decided by the Court preliminarily. Hence the order impugned is contrary to law. Accordingly requested to set aside the same.

To support his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in between Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others^{11.1970(1) Supreme Court Cases 670} wherein it is recited that:

As per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred paragraph, it is clear that the decree passed by the Lok Adalat is nullity in the eye of law. Hence the same can be raised by way of objection at the time of execution. Though the said objection is raised but the same has not been considered and decided. Hence the impugned orders are contrary to the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that in fact the award is of the year 2010 and Execution Petition is filed in the year 2017. In fact as per the averments made in the petition, it is clearly disclosed that the Hon’ble Court attachment is raised against the schedule property and the same is made absolute vide order dated 08.12.2020. In the said circumstances, without assailing the said orders, the Revision Petitioners are not entitled to file Execution Application and ask for lifting of the said attachment which is not permissible. Hence the trial Court has rightly considered and dismissed the said application giving liberty to raise said objections at the time of enquiry of main execution. He further brought to the notice of the Court that in fact the petitioners have approached the Hon’ble High Court by assailing the award of Lok Adalat dated 02.9.2010 in W.P.No.24556 of 2023. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the said petition and dismissed the same vide order dated 12.11.2024. The said orders became final. When he has participated in the Lok Adalat proceedings, he himself has signed the award, he has not precluded to go and raise an objection when there is pecuniary jurisdiction. Further though he has assailed the award on the same ground in W.P.No.24556 of 2023 and the same has been dismissed. Hence there is no valid reason to assail the very same objection again and again.

Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24556 of 2023 dated 12.11.2024 and also the impugned orders, this Court is of the firm opinion that once, the petitioners have participated in the Lok Adalat and made parties to the award, now at the E.P. stage, the respondents ought not to have entitled to raise the objection. Apart from that, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, once the attachment is made absolute vide order dt.08.12.2020 without assailing the said orders, the petitioners are not entitled to ask for raising of the attachment of E.P. schedule property.

In view of the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. The petitioners have not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.