Studio Road v. Prakasam District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the circumstance, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ss. 21, 25
Judgment
Cause title
1 Neeli Guravaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Gaddalaguntapalem, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 2 Neeli Sambaiah, S/o. Late N. Guravaiah, R/o C/o. Neeli Venkateswarlu, Chintalatopu, Near Water Tank, Lawyerpeta, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 3 Neeli Venkateswarlu, S/o. Late Guravaiah, R/o. Chintalatopu, Near Water Tank, Lawyerpeta, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 4 Neeli Venkat Rao, S/o. Late N. Guravaiah, R/o. Chintalatopu, Near Water Tank, Lawyerpeta, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 5 Neeli Hari, S/o. Late N. Guravaiah, R/o. Chintalatopu, Near Water Tank, Lawyerpeta, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 6 Neeli Prasad, S/o. Late N. Guravaiah, R/o. C/o. Neeli Venkateswarlu, R/o. Chintalatopu, Near Water Tank, Lawyerpeta, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 7 Neeli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late N. Guravaiah, R/o. C/o. Neeli Venkateswarlu, R/o. Chintalatopu, Near Water Tank, Lawyerpeta, Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. 8 Neeli Papaiah, S/o. Late Neeli Venkaiah, R/o. C/o. Neeli Nageswar Rao, STD Booth, Nagar Market Centre Kotavari Street, (Tunfan Nagar), 14th Ward Bapatla, Guntur District. 9 Neeli Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, R/o. STD Booth, Near Nagar Market Centre Kotavari Street, (Tunfan Nagar), 14th Ward Bapatla, Guntur District. 10 Neeli Mala Kondaiah, S/o. Late N. Venkaiah, R/o. Kotavari Street, (Tunfan Nagar), 14th Ward Bapatla, Guntur District. 11 Ilavala Linga Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, Amrutha Real Estate, Opp to Power Office, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 12 Ilavala Venkataswamy Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, Amrutha Real Estate, Opp to Power Office, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 13 Pidugu Sivareddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Amrutha Real Estate, Opp to Power Office, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 14 The Secretary, S/o. Koti Reddy, Amrutha Real Estate, Opp to Power Office, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertaining to O.S. N. 253 of 2005 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole and set- a-side the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 24-3-0006 declaring that the same is illegal, arbitrary, violative of well settled principles of law and consequently quash the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Operative part
(Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.S.No. 253/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole and seeking to set aside the award passed by the Lok adalat dated 24.3.2006 declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier he filed O.S.No. 253 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat under Section 21(1) r/w Section 25 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, pursuant to which the parties have entered into a compromise and memorandum of compromise was recorded and the respective advocates affixed their signatures on the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not a party to the suit or to the award passed by the Lok Adalat but by virtue of compromise the parties have included his share. We are unable to accept this contention inasmuch as he is not a party to the suit and also proceedings of the award. Therefore, it does not bind him and he has to file a separate suit seeking partition claiming his share in respect of the suit schedule property along with an interlocutory application seeking an injunction stating that pending disposal of the suit not to take any coercive steps and not to alienate the property. In the circumstance, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from filing a separate suit. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________________ ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 30.03.2009 KA // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To
2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the circumstance, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — ss. 21, 25.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.