HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.540 of 2010 Dated: 13-04-2010 Between: Voona Sarveswara Rao …Petitioner AND Pillala Neeladri Rao & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.540 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioners seek to declare the compromise petition settled in the Lok Adalat Bench, Guntur in Lok Adalat Case No.652 of 2007, dated 11.10.2007 and the consequential E.P.No.106 of 2008 in O.S.No.170 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and not binding on the petitioners and to set aside the same. It is not disputed that M/s.Sri Srinivasa Cotton Traders-second respondent herein filed O.S.No.170 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur represented by Gunda Srinivasa Rao, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the respondent No.7 (defendant No.8) and the respondent No.7 herein (defendant No.8) is the son of the respondent No.4 (defendant No.2). Similarly, respondent No.5 (defendant No.4) is the father-in-law of respondent No.4 and the respondent No.6 (defendant No.5) is the son of respondent No.5 herein and the brother-in-law of respondent No.3(defendant No.2) and that the petitioners herein were arrayed as defendants 3, 6 and 7 in the suit. It is pleaded that even though the petitioners have not received any summons from the Court, respondent Nos.2 to 8 being the relatives requested them to sign the vakalath and compromise petition stating that they are going to settle the disputes among themselves. Believing the words of the respondents, the writ petitioners have appeared before the Lok Adalat on 11.10.2007 and the impugned award was passed in terms of the alleged settlement. On receipt of the notice in E.P.No.106 of 2008 in O.S.No. 170 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur for sale of properties belonging to the respondent No.3-partnership firm, the petitioners came to know the fraud played by the respondents 2 to 8 herein. It is alleged that taking advantage of the management, the respondent No.4 in collusion with the respondent No.7 intentionally created and brought the respondent No.3 firm into loses even though there was no debt to the decree holder. The respondent Nos.4 and 7 without intimating the true facts to the petitioners got decreed the suit by way of settlement before the Lok Adalath for the full amount stating that the said decree is only nominal decree to avoid the debts of the respondent No.2 firm. Believing the words of the respondent Nos.4 and 7, the petitioners have signed on the papers. It is further pleaded that the respondent No.4 in collusion with the plaintiff deposited various cheques on different dates and has withdrawn the amount in the name of respondent No.8. Further the respondent No.4 has executed various promissory notes on different dates in lieu of the cheques received by him. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the entire compromise settled before the Lok Adalath is collusive one and the same is not binding on them and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. This Court while issuing notice before admission on 21.1.2010 directed the first respondent-Lok Adalath, Guntur Bench to send a report clarifying the following points: “(i) Whether the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.3,6 and 7 in Lok Adalat Case No.652 of 2007 signed the memorandum of Compromise before the Lok Adalat? (ii) Whether petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein were present on 11.10.2007 when the Lok Adalat passed the award in Lok Adalat Case No.652 of 2007?, and (iii) If the petitioners herein were present before Lok Adalat, they were properly identified by the counsel or by others.” Pursuant to the above direction, the first respondent submitted a report on 5.2.2010. The relevant portion reads as under: “I submit that as per the docket order, dated 11.10.2007 both parties in the suit i.e. petitioners (Defendants 3,6 and 7 in suit) and respondents 2 to 7 in writ petition (Plaintiff and Defendants 1,2,4,5 and 8 in suit) were present before Lok Adalath on the same day i.e. 11.10.2007 and signed on the memorandum of compromise and also on the award. I further submit that memorandum of compromise and award show that the counsel for both plaintiff and defendants in the suit identified their respective parties (Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 7 in writ petition). Accordingly the award was passed.” The Vakalath signed by the petitioners herein and the joint memo filed on their behalf clearly established that the petitioners were made known of the terms of the settlement by the first respondent-Lok Adalath when they appeared before it on 11.10.2007 and they have agreed for such terms of the compromise after negotiation, conciliation and discussions before the first respondent on the said date and that the first respondent also intervened between the parties in entering into amicable settlement, for which the parties have agreed to. All the parties to the compromise have also signed the award passed by the Lok Adalath. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot turn around and complain that the award was obtained by playing fraud on them in obtaining the decree as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Further in the entire affidavit no specific plea or instances of fraud have been pleaded except stating in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that the petitioners came to know that the defendant No.2 in collusion with the plaintiff has deposited cheques mentioned therein and executed promissory notes on different dates in lieu of cheques received by him. If the said amount has not been received by the first defendant-firm, the petitioners being the partners of the firm can avail the remedy for rendition of accounts against the other partners, if any, but once the firm is indebted to the first respondent-decree holder, in the absence of any particulars of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence as specified under Order VI Rule 4 C.P.C., the contention of the petitioners that the compromise arrived as a result of fraud cannot be accepted particularly when they appeared before the Lok Adalath, participated in the discussions, negotiations and conciliation for arriving the settlement between the plaintiff and the first respondent-partnership firm and then only the decree as such was passed in terms of such settlement arrived between the parties. In view of the same, we see no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to avail the remedies available to them against the partnership firm or other partners of the firm, if law permits. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ APRIL 13, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr.