ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Lok Adalat Award — Partition suit — Non-impleadmen...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Lok Adalat Award — Partition suit — Non-impleadmen...: advocatemmmohan AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT  Lok Adalat Award — Partition suit — Non-impleadment of necessary sharers — Allegation of fraud — Pr...

Lok Adalat Award — Partition suit — Non-impleadment of necessary sharers — Allegation of fraud — Prima facie case made out (Interim Order)

Issue: Whether Lok Adalat award in partition suit is liable to be questioned for non-impleadment of necessary legal heirs.
Facts: Suit for partition relating to property of a female who died intestate was referred to Lok Adalat and award dated 29.06.2024 was passed in O.S.No.92 of 2023; petitioner contended that he, being son of deceased female, and her husband were legal heirs entitled to shares under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but were deliberately not impleaded and award was obtained behind their back by fraud.
Held: Since all co-sharers are necessary parties in a partition suit and omission to implead persons entitled to share is fatal, petitioner established a prima facie case warranting examination of validity of Lok Adalat award on allegations of fraud.

---

Legal Services Authorities Act — Challenge to Lok Adalat award — Civil suit barred — Writ petition maintainable on allegation of fraud (Interim Order)

Issue: Whether separate civil suit is maintainable to challenge Lok Adalat award obtained by fraud.
Facts: Petitioner challenged Lok Adalat award contending that award was obtained by suppressing existence of necessary sharers and without impleading them in partition proceedings.
Held: Since challenge to Lok Adalat award by separate civil suit is barred under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, writ petition is maintainable to question validity of award, particularly on ground of fraud.

---

Partition suit — Necessary parties — Failure to implead co-sharers — Effect (Interim Order)

Issue: Effect of non-impleadment of persons entitled to share in partition property.
Facts: Petitioner alleged that despite entitlement under Section 15 Hindu Succession Act, neither he nor husband of deceased female owner was impleaded in suit culminating in Lok Adalat award.
Held: It is settled law that every person entitled to share in partition property is a necessary party, and failure to implead such co-sharers is fatal to maintainability and validity of partition proceedings. Consequently, interim stay of execution of Lok Adalat award was granted.

Police inaction — Alleged trespass into property — Dispute found civil in nature (Paras 3–4) Issue: Whether police were bound to take criminal action on petitioner’s complaints alleging trespass into house plot. Facts: Petitioner, a physically differently-abled person, complained that certain persons trespassed into his house plot at Panchalingala Village during night hours, erected stones and attempted further construction; representations dated 31.03.2026, 06.04.2026 and 13.04.2026 were submitted to police and district authorities. Police conducted preliminary enquiry and opined that dispute was civil in nature and petitioner had not approached competent civil Court. Held: In view of preliminary enquiry indicating existence of civil dispute relating to property possession, police did not proceed with criminal action. (Paras 3–4)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Police inaction — Alleged trespass into property — Dispute found civil in nature (Paras 3–4)

Issue: Whether police were bound to take criminal action on petitioner’s complaints alleging trespass into house plot.
Facts: Petitioner, a physically differently-abled person, complained that certain persons trespassed into his house plot at Panchalingala Village during night hours, erected stones and attempted further construction; representations dated 31.03.2026, 06.04.2026 and 13.04.2026 were submitted to police and district authorities. Police conducted preliminary enquiry and opined that dispute was civil in nature and petitioner had not approached competent civil Court.
Held: In view of preliminary enquiry indicating existence of civil dispute relating to property possession, police did not proceed with criminal action. (Paras 3–4)

---

Criminal procedure — Police inaction on complaint — Remedy of private complaint before Magistrate (Paras 5–7)

Issue: Remedy available when police fail to act on complaint.
Facts: Petitioner sought writ direction compelling police authorities to act upon his complaints regarding alleged trespass.
Held: When police do not act on complaint, complainant has efficacious alternative remedy of filing private complaint before jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 190 r/w 200 Cr.P.C./Section 210 r/w 223 BNSS; petitioner was granted liberty accordingly. (Paras 5–7)

---

Jurisdictional Magistrate — Duty upon presentation of private complaint (Para 7)

Issue: Obligation of Magistrate upon receipt of private complaint.
Facts: High Court granted liberty to petitioner to institute private complaint before jurisdictional Magistrate regarding alleged trespass and illegal construction.
Held: Upon filing of private complaint, jurisdictional Magistrate shall bestow attention to complaint and deal with same strictly in accordance with law. (Para 7)

SARFAESI proceedings — Non-service of notices — Questions to be agitated before DRT (Paras 2(iv), 3) Issue: Whether alleged defects in service of demand and possession notices justify writ interference. Facts: Petitioners alleged that demand notice dated 22.05.2023 under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act and subsequent possession proceedings were not served in prescribed manner and auction proceedings were initiated illegally. Held: Such disputes relating to service, procedure and validity of SARFAESI measures are matters falling within jurisdiction of DRT and not for adjudication in writ proceedings at first instance. (Paras 2(iv), 3)

 

SARFAESI Act — Challenge to e-auction notice — Alternative remedy before DRT — Writ petition not maintainable (Paras 2(v), 3–4)

Issue: Whether High Court should entertain writ petition challenging e-auction sale notice issued under SARFAESI proceedings.
Facts: Petitioners challenged e-auction notice dated 06.01.2026 issued by Central Bank of India in respect of mortgaged residential flat, contending that demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and possession proceedings were not properly served; petitioners had already filed S.A.No.121 of 2026 before DRT and earlier obtained interim protection.
Held: Since statutory remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act was already invoked before DRT, all grievances relating to auction notice and recovery measures ought to be pursued before DRT; no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. (Paras 2(v), 3–4)

---

SARFAESI proceedings — Non-service of notices — Questions to be agitated before DRT (Paras 2(iv), 3)

Issue: Whether alleged defects in service of demand and possession notices justify writ interference.
Facts: Petitioners alleged that demand notice dated 22.05.2023 under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act and subsequent possession proceedings were not served in prescribed manner and auction proceedings were initiated illegally.
Held: Such disputes relating to service, procedure and validity of SARFAESI measures are matters falling within jurisdiction of DRT and not for adjudication in writ proceedings at first instance. (Paras 2(iv), 3)

---

Writ jurisdiction — SARFAESI recovery proceedings — Liberty to pursue statutory remedies (Para 4)

Issue: Whether dismissal of writ petition bars borrower from pursuing statutory remedies.
Facts: Petitioners sought protection against dispossession and auction of secured asset despite pendency of securitisation application before DRT.
Held: While dismissing writ petition at admission stage, Court reserved liberty to petitioners to pursue remedies available in law before DRT. (Para 4) 

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Compounding at revisional stage — Permissibility (Paras 3–7) Issue: Whether offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded during pendency of criminal revision against conviction. Facts: Petitioner convicted in C.C.No.254 of 2004 for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, with conviction confirmed in appeal, filed applications during pendency of Criminal Revision Case seeking permission to compound offence on basis of settlement reached with complainant-finance company. Held: Since offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature and parties voluntarily entered into compromise after settlement of dues, compounding was permitted even at revisional stage. (Paras 3–7)

 AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Compounding at revisional stage — Permissibility (Paras 3–7)

Issue: Whether offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded during pendency of criminal revision against conviction.
Facts: Petitioner convicted in C.C.No.254 of 2004 for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, with conviction confirmed in appeal, filed applications during pendency of Criminal Revision Case seeking permission to compound offence on basis of settlement reached with complainant-finance company.
Held: Since offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature and parties voluntarily entered into compromise after settlement of dues, compounding was permitted even at revisional stage. (Paras 3–7)

---

Compromise — Voluntariness — Satisfaction of complainant — Effect (Para 4)

Issue: Whether compromise between parties was genuine and voluntary.
Facts: Managing Partner of complainant-financier personally appeared before Court and stated that entire amount was received, compromise application was signed voluntarily without coercion, and he had no objection for release of accused.
Held: Upon satisfaction regarding genuineness and voluntariness of compromise, Court accepted settlement between parties. (Para 4)

---

Compounding of offence — Effect on conviction and sentence — Acquittal of accused (Paras 6–7)

Issue: Consequence of compounding offence under Section 138 N.I. Act after confirmation of conviction in appeal.
Facts: Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed in Criminal Appeal were sought to be nullified on basis of compromise.
Held: Once offence was compounded, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court stood set aside, accused was acquitted, and sureties were discharged. (Paras 6–7)

Procedural law — Rules are handmaids of justice — Balancing liberal approach with procedural discipline (Paras 7–10) Issue: Principles governing condonation of delay and restoration applications. Facts: Petitioner pleaded ignorance of conditional order directing payment of costs, while respondent opposed restoration contending that petitioner negligently failed to comply with earlier conditional orders. Held: While procedural rules are intended to advance justice and liberal approach should be adopted where refusal may defeat meritorious claims, courts must also guard against negligence and abuse of process; balance can be maintained by imposing realistic costs and conditions. (Paras 7–10)

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Condonation of delay and restoration — Liberal approach in partition suits — Opportunity to contest on merits (Paras 7–11)

Issue: Whether delay in seeking restoration of applications to set aside ex parte preliminary decree should be condoned.
Facts: In a partition suit between brother and sister, defendant was set ex parte and ex parte preliminary decree was passed; though applications for condonation of delay and setting aside decree were earlier allowed subject to payment of ₹5,000/- costs, defendant failed to comply with condition, resulting in dismissal of applications, after which restoration petitions with delays of 106 and 112 days were filed.
Held: Considering that dispute related to partition and valuable family property rights, Court adopted liberal approach to advance substantial justice and granted one final opportunity to contest suit on merits, subject to enhanced costs of ₹10,000/-. (Paras 7–11)

---

Procedural law — Rules are handmaids of justice — Balancing liberal approach with procedural discipline (Paras 7–10)

Issue: Principles governing condonation of delay and restoration applications.
Facts: Petitioner pleaded ignorance of conditional order directing payment of costs, while respondent opposed restoration contending that petitioner negligently failed to comply with earlier conditional orders.
Held: While procedural rules are intended to advance justice and liberal approach should be adopted where refusal may defeat meritorious claims, courts must also guard against negligence and abuse of process; balance can be maintained by imposing realistic costs and conditions. (Paras 7–10)

---

Partition suit — Senior citizens — Expeditious disposal — Direction to cooperate (Para 12)

Issue: Whether trial Court should be directed to expedite disposal of partition suit.
Facts: Both plaintiff and defendant in partition litigation were senior citizens and suit was pending since 2018.
Held: Trial Court was directed to expedite trial and dispose of suit as early as possible, and parties were directed to cooperate for early disposal. (Para 12)