116 CWP No.

6264 of 2018

Balla vs. Daily Lok Adalat, District Court, Kaithal & anr.

Present: Ms. Renu Dhull, Advocate,

for the petitioner.
******

This petition is filed for setting aside the award dated 09.02.2018

passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, Kaithal.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the

defendant in a suit for recovery filed by respondent no.2-bank. In the said

suit, the petitioner had engaged S.K.Dhos, Advocate, on his behalf. The said

suit was decreed on 20.01.2017. After the decree, respondent no.2 filed an

application for execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”) and also filed an

application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. The petitioner has submitted that he

had no knowledge about the decree of the suit for recovery, therefore, he filed

an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application for stay.

It is further submitted that the petitioner had suffered his statement on

20.01.2018 that he had already paid the entire money to the bank and a false

case has been filed against him and requested for time to give proof of the

payment having been made to the bank. It appears that the petitioner did not

submit the proof of the payment, however, on 09.02.2018, the Permanent Lok

Adalat passed the impugned order, in which it is recorded that the parties have

settled their dispute amicably. Accordingly, the application filed by the

petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn.

One of the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner had not engaged S.K.Dhos, Advocate as his counsel and

in this regard, she has referred to the power of attorney signed by the said

For Subsequent orders see LPA-1257-2018

1 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2019 21:01:46 :::
 CWP No.6264 of 2018 -2-

advocate. Incidentally, there is no date on the power of attorney but there is a

date on the revenue stamp i.e. 09.02.2018. It appears that the petitioner is

referring to the appearance of S.K. Dhos, Advocate, on 09.02.2018 without

any authority.

Be that as it may, during the course of hearing, counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already made the entire payment to

the bank. Earlier also, when the petitioner had suffered the statement on

20.01.2018, he had made the same statement and taken time to tender the proof

of payment. Today also, counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in

order to place on record the proof of having made the payment of all dues of

the bank so that the matter can be settled once for all.

On her request, adjourned to 05.04.2018.

March 19, 2018 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)

vinod* Judge

For Subsequent orders see LPA-1257-2018

2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2019 21:01:46 :::