*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM No.1439/2009 % Date of decision:9th December, 2009 M/s Onkar Investments Pvt. Ltd. .…Petitioner Through: Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate. Versus Sh. J.P. Rawat ... Respondents Through: None. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner instituted a suit under Order 37 of the CPC against the respondent/defendant for recovery of Rs.2,45,804. It is the case of the petitioner, that summons for judgment were issued to the respondent/defendant; leave to defend application was filed by the respondent/defendant before the trial court; that during the hearing of the said application for leave to defend the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat; that a joint statement of compromise was filed by the parties before the Mega Lok Adalat; that as per the said compromise the respondent/defendant agreed to pay Rs.1,40,782/- to the petitioner/plaintiff together with interest at 18% per annum on reducing balance and in 16 monthly insalments details whereof were given in annexure “A” to the said joint statement; 16 post dated cheques were handed over by the respondent/defendant to the petitioner/plaintiff. 2. The aforesaid joint statement of compromise, in the prayer paragraph thereof requested that the decree in terms of the compromise be passed. It appears that the statement of the authorized representative of the petitioner/plaintiff was also recorded before the Lok Adalat on 8th November, 2008 where the joint statement of compromise was exhibited as exhibit C-1 and it was furher recorded that the petitioner/plaintiff did not wish to pursue the case any more and the same may be disposed of as such. The Judge, Lok Adalat vide order of 8th November, 2008 recorded that the matter had been compromised and ordered that nothing survived in the case and the same was dismissed as compromised. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the post dated cheques given by the respondent/defendant in terms of the compromise were dishonoured. The petitioner/plaintiff states that it approached the Civil Judge before whom the suit was pending but the Civil Judge refused to entertain any application of the petitioner/[plaintiff on the ground that no decree had been passed in the suit and hence the petitioner/plaintiff could not approach the court. I must, however, record that there is nothing filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to show that the Civil Court was approached. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff however states that since the Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed refused to entertain the application, no order came to be made thereon. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that owing to the procedure adopted, the petitioner/plaintiff inspite of having instituted the suit has been left with no remedy whatsoever. 5. There is merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Ordinarily on reference of the suit to Lok Adalat, the same ought to come back before the court for disposal in terms of the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat, even though this court has held that the compromise signed on reference to mediation has the same trapping as an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and no separate application is required to be filed before the court. From the documents filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before this court it does not appear that the suit, after settlement/compromise before the Lok Adalat came back to the court from which it was referred to Lok Adalat. In fact, the judge, Lok Adalat has vide order dated 8th November, 2008 consigned the suit file to record room. Even if the said procedure is to be accepted, the fact remains that the suit as per the joint statement of compromise was to be decreed as compromised and was not to be dismissed. Though, in the statement of authorized representative of the petitioner/plaintiff recorded before the Lok Adalat it was stated that the petitioner/plaintiff did not wish to pursue the case but it cannot be lost sight of that the said statement was made without the assistance of the advocate and the essence of the statement was the compromise. The Judge, Lok Adalat did not consider that it was not the case of a compromise where nothing further remained to be done by the parties. The compromise arrived at was of payments to be made by the respondent/defendant to the petitioner/plaintiff extending beyond the date of the compromise. The suit ought not to have been disposed of in a manner leaving the petitioner/plaintiff with no remedy in the event of the respondent/defendant not abiding by the compromise. 6. Need has not been felt in the aforesaid facts and circumstances to issue notice of this petition to the respondent/defendant or to hear the respondent/defendant before disposing of this petition, inasmuch as the error in the proceedings before the trial court sought to be corrected by this petition is of the court /judge Lok Adalat and not at the instance of the respondent/defendant. Neither the petitioner/plaintiff nor the respondent/defendant had any say in the procedure followed by the court below and as such upon the error in the procedure being brought to the attention of this court, this court is entitled to correct the same without issuing notice to the respondent/defendant. 7. The petition therefore succeeds. The petitioner/plaintiff is directed to approach the trial court where the suit was pending with appropriate application for drawing up a decree in terms of the compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat. The trial court, if satisfied on the basis of the documents received from the Lok Adalat that the suit has been compromised, will proceed to draw up a decree. The trial court shall be entitled to, if so deem appropriate, to, before drawing up the decree, issue notice to the respondent/defendant. Upon the decree being drawn up, the petitioner shall be entitled to take further steps for failure, if any, of the respondent/defendant to abide by the compromise as the petitioner/plaintiff may be entitled to in law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. CM.No. 17875/2009 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) December 09 , 2009 M