Prasanth P Kumar vs State Of Kerala

Harisankar V. Menon, J

The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale with the 4th respondent herein. The 4th respondent paid an advance  amount  in  excess  of  Rs.90  lakhs. However,  for  one reason or another, the sale did not take place. The 4th respondent sought the return of the advance amount. The petitioners  were  also  ready  to  refund  the  advance  amount,  in terms  of  the  agreement  for  sale. But  since  the  petitioners  did not refund the advance amount, the 4th respondent herein instituted  an  application/complaint  at  Ext.P2,  before  the  Adoor Taluk Legal Services Authority. The afore application is presented on 18.10.2022. The petitioners were directed to appear – they state, by telephone – and on the basis of the afore direction, the petitioners also admit that they appeared before the 3rd respondent on the very next day, on 19.10.2022, along with a lawyer. By Ext.P3 award, the 3rd respondent Committee recorded the undertaking given by the petitioners that they were ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.98,35,000/-  on  or  before  05.04.2023. Post-dated  cheques issued by the petitioners were also handed over to the 4th respondent herein. However, the 4th respondent sought to execute Ext.P3 by filing Ext.P4 execution petition. The cheques issued by the petitioners were also not honoured. It is also to be noticed that the execution petition was presented on 10.04.2023. The petitioners also entered appearance and sought to object the execution petition. It is even after all the above,  that  on  25.11.2023,  they  instituted  the  captioned  writ petition, seeking to challenge the award at Ext.P3.

Heard Sri. T.M. Raman Kartha, the learned counsel  for  the  petitioners,  Sri.  K.  Shaj  , the  learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Smt. Shameena Salahudheen, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,  the  entire  proceedings  leading  to  Ext.P3  could  not be sustained for more than one reason. According to him, the award at Ext.P3 is on account of a fraud played on the petitioners. Secondly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3rd respondent did not have any  jurisdiction  to  issue  an  award  in  the  nature  of  Ext.P3  with reference  to  the  mandate  under  Section  19(5)(ii)  of  the  Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

Per  Contra, Sri.  K.  Shaj,  the  learned counsel for  the  4th respondent,  would  point  out  that  even  going  by  the averments in the writ petition, the fraud alleged against the entire proceedings have not been proven. He would also seek to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in  K. Srinivasappa & Ors v. M. Mallamma & Ors [AIR 2022 SC 2381], to contend that unless and until the alleged fraud is proven conclusively, an award in the nature of Ext.P3 could not be interfered with, by  this  Court. Smt. Shameena, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, would also join the issue, by pointing out that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to Section 19(5)(ii) of the Act is not arising for consideration, in view of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in W.P.(C) No.6190 of 2019, produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent as Ext.R2(a).

I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

As  regards  the  allegation  of  fraud,  this  Court notices  that  the  averments  to  that  effect  are  contained  only  in paragraph  4 of  the  writ  petition. The  averments  in  the  said paragraph are only to the effect that the petitioners were directed  over  phone  to  appear  before  Adalat  on  the  “very  next day” and, when they appeared as directed, they were forced into the compromise. But, in my opinion, the afore would not be sufficient  to  prove any  fraud  against  the appellant. This  is especially so, when the petitioners themselves admit that there was no coercion for their appearance and since, as already noticed, they were accompanied by a lawyer. Hence, the allegation as regards fraud, is only to be turned down.

As regards the jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Kartha, would point out that the 3rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction, since the petitioners  could  not  have  instituted  a suit  with  respect  to  the pecuniary  jurisdiction,  since  the  Taluk  of  Adoor  did  not  have  a Sub Court. Though the afore contention appears to be attractive, on a deeper analysis of the provisions of Section 19(5)  of  the  Act,  I am  of  the  opinion that  insofar  as  Section 19(5) has not spoken about any “pecuniary jurisdiction” and has only spoken about “territorial jurisdiction” the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High  Court has  considered the very same issue. There, the petitioner contented that the litigation was pending before a particular district, on account of which, if at all a complaint could be lodged and considered, that can be only by the District Legal Services Authority. Considering this issue, the High Court, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, has categorically found that the statute does not specify any “pecuniary jurisdiction”. On  that  basis, it was  found  that  the Taluk Legal Services Authority could also entertain a complaint.

This Court also notices the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Thomas @ Thomas v. Florance [2006 (3) KLT 717], wherein more or less the same principles have been laid down.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not  entitled to  succeed. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same would stand dismissed.