VISHNU PRIYA FURNITURE v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Lok-Adalat award dated 22.04.2016 in Lok Adaiath Case No. 1015/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased further proceedings E.P.No.24/2024 in O.S.No.294/2012 on the file of the Hon'ble VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada till disposal of writ petition and to pass in E.A.No. 147/2024 to stay Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. VINODIN RUTH MADAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

#2. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

#3. P NAGENDRA REDDY 3 RRR, J & SS, J W.P.No.28283 of 2024 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondents 5 & 6, as legal heirs of the 4th respondent, had filed O.S.No.294 of 2012 before the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner herein, for evicting the petitioner from the suit schedule property and for arrears of rent and future rents and damages. The petitioner engaged a counsel, who contested the matter.

#2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had subsequently vacated the premises. However, respondents 5 & 6 have moved E.P.No.147 of 2024, before the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,46,004/- for the period

01.04.2024 to 31.07.2024 and for further payment of rent @ Rs.73,002/- from

01.08.2024 onwards, on the basis of an award that is said to have been passed on 22.04.2016 in Lok Adalat Case No.1015 of 2016, passed by the Lok Adalat at Vijayawada.

#3. The case of the petitioner is that the said Lok Adalat award was obtained behind the back of the petitioner as the petitioner had never participated in the said award proceedings. It is further stated that the petitioner had vacated the premises long time back and the question of payment of rents, from 01.04.2024 onwards, does not arise.

#4. Respondents 5 & 6 have filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that, under the agreement, which is the basis of the impugned award, the petitioner was to continue as a tenant in the suit schedule premises for a period of 8 years and the petitioner would have to 4 RRR, J & SS, J W.P.No.28283 of 2024 vacate the premises on or before 31.03.2024. It was also agreed that the petitioner would enhance the rent @ 15% for every 2 years and in the event of the petitioner not vacating the premises on 31.03.2024, the petitioner would pay damages at double the existing rent, as on 31.03.2024, till the petitioner vacates the premises.

#5. The counter affidavit further states that the petitioner had sought to change the name of the petitioner firm and rental deeds were also sent in that regard to the petitioner. It is further stated that in the 1st week of April, the Proprietrix of the petitioner made an oral request for further extension of the said period, which was refused by respondents 5 & 6. Thereafter, the son of the Proprietrix of the petitioner filed O.S.No.639 of 2024, before the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for grant of permanent injunction on the ground that he was a tenant in the premises since the year 2019. It is further stated that in view of these actions of the petitioner and her family members, the respondents 5 & 6 have moved E.P.No.24 of 2024 on

26.04.2024, for execution of the Lok Adalat award and the same is pending.

#6. We have perused the award passed by the Lok Adalat. This award contains the signature of the counsel for the petitioner, who was appearing for the appellant in the suit as well as the signature of the Proprietrix of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner, that the award, dated 22.04.2016, was passed behind the back of the petitioner, is difficult to accept. If the contention of the petitioner was to be accepted, there is no explanation anywhere as to why the respondents 5 & 6, having initiated steps 5 RRR, J & SS, J W.P.No.28283 of 2024 for evicting the petitioner, had refrained from taking any further steps in the suit or as to what was the fate of the said suit. It is clear that the suit was closed only on the basis of the award passed in the year 2016. The further fact that no affidavit of any nature has been obtained from the learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner before the Lok Adalat, would further strengthen our view that the award has been passed with the participation of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

#7. The allegation of the petitioner that she had vacated the premises is clearly belied by the filing of O.S.No.639 of 2024, by the son of the Proprietrix of the petitioner. In fact, the said allegation made by the petitioner, in the affidavit, is clearly a misleading and false statement made before this Court.

#8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said award. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 03.11.2025 MJA ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J 6 RRR, J & SS, J W.P.No.28283 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 28283/2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

03.11.2025 90 MJA