Judgment:
ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 70 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, against the petitioner and the District Educational Officer, Kadapa, for the relief of perpetual injunction, to restrain the petitioner from making further construction over the suit site. The suit was referred to the Lok Adalat, at Badvel, and a compromise decree was passed on 03-12-2005. The undertaking, on behalf of the parties, as regards the manner in which the roads, in front of the schools, owned by the petitioner, on the one hand, and the respondent, on the other hand, were mentioned.
2. The respondent filed E.P. No. 117 of 2006 before the Executing Court, under Order 21 Rule 32(1) C.P.C., praying for arrest of the Correspondent of the petitioner-school, on the ground that the conditions in the compromise decree are violated. The Executing Court allowed the E.P., with costs. Warrant was issued for sending the Correspondent of the petitioner, to Civil Prison, for 15 days. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.
3. Heard Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.R. Reddy Kowuri, learned Counsel for the respondent.
4. A mere perusal of the prayer in the suit discloses that the respondent wanted to enforce a right, which is not entitled to, in law. Be that as it may, a compromise decree was passed in the Lok Adalat. The terms of the decree relate mostly, to the manner of ingress and egress of the students of the respective schools. The complaint of the respondent was that the students of the petitioner school are entering the nearby road, contrary to the decree. Even assuming that the same is true, it emerges that the decree itself was incapable of being enforced. Further, if the decree is violated by the students, it becomes questionable as to how the respondent can seek arrest of the Correspondent of the petitioner Institution. This is nothing, but gross misuse of the process of law.
5. The Institutions of Lok Adalat were, no doubt, brought into existence, with an object of lessening the burden on the Courts, and to enable the parties to arrive at amicable solutions. Of late, their functioning has become a matter of embarrassment. Some of the orders passed by them are putting the Institution of Judiciary itself, to ridicule. The present case provides for an example.
6. The suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction, to restrain the petitioner, from making further construction in the suit site. Admittedly, the suit site is owned by the petitioner. The respondent did not claim any easementary or legal rights, vis-a-vis the said property. It is just impermissible for the respondent to seek injunction, vis-a-vis a property, that does not belong to it. These aspects could have been examined, if only the regular Court dealt with the matter. Obviously, being aware of the fate of the suit, the respondent made efforts to get the matter before the Lok Adalat, of course with the consent of the petitioner. Except putting a seal of approval, on what the petitioner and the respondent are said to have agreed upon, the Lok Adalat did not try to verify as to whether the terms of the compromise accord with the provisions of law. The compromise has to relevance to the relief claimed in the suit. The emphasis of the Lok Adalat was more about disposal of a case, than to verify the legality of the terms of the compromise.
7. In case the terms of compromise were violated in any manner, the respondent could have brought the same to the notice of the petitioner, or filed an E.P., for enforcement of the relevant clauses. However, he wanted to bring pressure upon the petitioner, by filing an application under Rule 32 of Order 21 C.P.C. The Executing Court failed to appreciate the fact, that the liberty of a person can be taken away only in extreme cases, after necessary ingredients prescribed by law are proved. The main grievance in the E.P. was that, gate was erected by the petitioner, is in excess of three feet, agreed to under the compromise. If that was the grievance, a direction could have been given to restrict the width of the gate, to three feet. The Executing Court did not examine the matter from the correct perspective.
8. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.