C. R. No. 3786 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3786 of 2008 Date of Decision : January 15, 2010 Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh .... Petitioner Vs. M/s Vee Kay Oils Pvt. Ltd. and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short – PSIDC) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing Award/Order dated 15.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Lok Adalat No.1, Malerkotla in suit filed by respondent no.1 against proforma respondents no.2 to 6 herein. Dispute between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6 was settled in Lok Adalat. Vide impugned order Annexure P-1, direction was issued to PSIDC (petitioner herein) to return the original title deed of the plaintiff, which stood deposited with PSIDC. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner C. R. No. 3786 of 2008 2 was not party to the suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 6, nor petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat and therefore, no direction could be issued to the petitioner to return the title deed of the plaintiff-respondent no.1. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, however, contended that the title deeds were deposited by respondent no.1 with State of Punjab (respondent no.2) and it was respondent no.2, which gave the title deed to PSIDC (petitioner) and therefore, direction was rightly issued by Lok Adalat to PSIDC to return title deed to the plaintiff because matter between plaintiff and defendants i.e. between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6 was compromised in Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 also contended that title deed was given to State of Punjab against loan raised by respondent no.1 from State of Punjab and the said loan stands repaid. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The title deed is admittedly in custody of the petitioner. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not party to the suit instituted by respondent no.1 against respondents no.2 to 6. It is also undisputed that the petitioner was not party to the compromise effected between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6, nor petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by Lok Adalat, qua direction to PSIDC to return the title deed to respondent no.1, cannot be sustained because the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner-PSIDC, nor any compromise was effected with the petitioner, nor petitioner was party to the suit in question, nor the petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat, nor petitioner was party to any settlement either before Lok Adalat or otherwise. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 15.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Lok Adalat C. R. No. 3786 of 2008 3 No.1, Malerkotla is set aside to the extent of direction given to the petitioner herein to return the title deed of the plaintiff-respondent no.1. However, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of rival claims of the parties. January 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE