Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dindukurthi Ramprasad vs V. Pradeep Kumar on 17 April, 2025
APHC010286272022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Thursday
Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April
Two Thousand and Twenty Five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.
B S. Bhanumathi
Civil Revision Petition No.583 of 2025
Between:
Dindukurthi Ramprasad S/o D.Ramachandraiah
D.Ramach
Aged about 45 years, R/o Vidya Nagar, Kurnool
...Petitioner
Petitioner
and
V.Pradeep Kumar S/o late V. A. Patel
R/o Bandimetta Street, Kurnool
...Respondent
Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner:
etitioner:
Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha
Counsel for the respondent:
espondent:
Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
ORDER:
This revision under Section 115 CPC is filed aggrieved by the
order, dated 03.02.2025, allowing E.P.No.2 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.3030 of
2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, filed
by the decree holder against the judgment debtor under Order XXI,
rules 34 and 35 and Section 151 CPC to issue notice to the JDr
directing him to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the DHr at
the cost of DHr in respect of EP schedule property, order delivery of
possession and on his failure, order the same under due process of law.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of E.P.No.2 of
2019, in brief, are as follows:
a. The JDr executed an agreement of sale, dated 13.05.2015, in
respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the DHr. The
dispute was referred to Lok Adalat, Kurnool. After notice, both parties
were present before the Lok Adalat, terms of compromise were
prepared and after due enquiry, the matter was settled before the Lok
Adalat. An award, dated 04.08.2015, was passed in terms of the
compromise. One of the terms of the compromise was not incorporated
in the award due to oversight. Thereupon, petition No.42 of 2016 was
filed seeking amendment of the award of the Lok Adalat and after notice
to the JDr, the award was amended on 29.01.2016. Thereafter, the
balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid to the JDr in
anticipation that the JDr may come for registration of the sale deed.
However, as the JDr did not come forward for registration of the sale
deed, the DHr filed execution petition.
3
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025b. E.P.No.1443 of 2017 was filed seeking a direction to the JDr to
execute the registered sale deed in favour of the DHr and deliver
possession of the EP schedule property. The DHr could not contact his
counsel on the date of adjournment and consequently, the EP was
dismissed on 17.04.2019 for default. Hence, the present execution
petition was filed seeking a direction to the JDr to execute the sale deed
in favour of the DHr as aforesaid.
4. The JDr filed counter opposing the petition and denying his
liability to execute the registered sale deed. It is further contended in
the counter as follows:
a. There is no executable decree. The pre-litigation award is merely
an agreement to sell the petition schedule property for Rs.50,00,000/- to
the DHr after receiving Rs.38,00,000/- at the first instance and
Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.06.2015.
b. The JDr never intended to sell the EP schedule property to the
DHr. Since the DHr promised that on payment of the debts, the award
will be torn off, the JDr signed the award before the Lok Adalat as an
agreement to sell the property assuring (the repayment of) the loan. As
the JDr did not agree for passing of the award for execution of the sale
deed, that part was not incorporated in the award.
c. The award filed by the DHr contains material alterations with
regard to clause (3), viz., incorporating the words “also received
Rs.9,00,000/- on 25.07.2015”. The said incorporation is without the
knowledge and consent of the JDr.
d. With regard to payment of Rs.9,00,000/- on 25.07.2015, there
was no mention of it in the award. But, the award was subsequently
4
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025amended without the knowledge and consent of the JDr. DHr
impersonated the JDr before the Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority and committed fraud for passing an order of amendment.
Since, JDr was not present, his signature was not obtained on the
amendment.
e. The amendment was not carried out by the Lok Adalat. The
members of the Lok Adalat were not present at the time of passing the
order for amendment. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority
has no authority to amend the orders passed by the Lok Adalat. Since
the amendment carried out in the award was without the authority and
without the knowledge of the JDr, the award is non est and
inexecutable.
f. As per the award, the DHr agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- at the time
of registration of sale deed in his favour. The award does not
contemplate that the JDr shall execute the sale deed in pursuance of
the compromise and it was only an agreement to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to the JDr at the time of registration.
g. The receipt, dated 20.08.2016, filed by the DHr is not executed by
the JDr and in fact, no such payment was made to him on 20.08.2016.
The DHr obtained his signatures on white papers along with signatures
on terms of compromise. Those papers were misused by the DHr for
preparing the receipt. Any payments subsequent to the award shall be
as per Order XXI, rules 1 and 2 CPC. Therefore, the execution petition
is liable to be dismissed.
5. After hearing both parties, the District Court allowed the petition.
The operative portion of the order impugned reads as follows:
5
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025“In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed without costs.
The Decree-Holder is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
one lakh only) to the Judgment-debtor within a period of one
month from the date of this order or he shall deposit the said
amount into this court within one month from the date of this
order and on such payment / deposit, the Judgment-debtor is
directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the
Decree-holder in respect of the Execution Petition schedule
property.”
6. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtor filed this revision petition.
7. The award, dated 04.08.2015, passed by the Lok Adalat reads as
follows:
“1. Petitioner and respondent are present and the matter
is compromised in the presence of members of Lok Adalat
held today.
2. That the respondent agreed to sell the petition
schedule land, shed and machinery and its attachments to the
petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty lakhs only)
to the petitioner, received a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty eight lakhs only) from the petitioner on dt.13.05.2015
and the balance sale consideration is payable within twelve
months from the date of agreement and incorporating the
terms of contract the respondent got executed agreement of
sale, dt.13.05.2015 in favour of the petitioner.
3. That the respondent also received a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) from the petitioner on
6
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
8.6.2015, *[also received Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs)
on 25.7.2015], the part payments were endorsed on the
reverse of the agreement of sale dt.13.5.2015. The petitioner
has agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-
to the respondent at the time of registration of the sale deed in
favour of the petitioner or his order at his cost for which
respondent also agreed.
4. In the result, award is passed accordingly.
SCHEDULE
Plot No.35, situated within the limits of Kallur (V), Kallur Sub
Registration District, Kurnool city limits, Municipal Ward
No.77, land in Sy.No.519, situating near Municipal bearing
D.No.77/184, APIIC Ltd., Industrial Estate, Kallur, Kurnool
along with shed and machinery.
Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their
consent for the terms of award.
Note:- Award in Para No.3 in second line is amended as per
Petition No.42/2016 vide orders, dated 29.01.2016.”
8. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the
amendment in the award was carried out by the Secretary, District Legal
Services Authority, who has no jurisdiction to pass or amend an award
since it is the Lok Adalat which alone can pass the award as per Section
20(3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Act’, for short).
He further submitted that when law prescribes certain things to be done
in a certain way, they must be done only in that manner. He further
contended that when a material alteration is made to a document
____________________
* is inserted by amendment
7
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
without proper authority and without consent of a party to it, the whole
document is rendered void.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal
Services Authority and others1, it was held at paras No.9 to 11 as
follows:
“9. The Act provided a statutory backing and support to
Lok Adalats, organizing which is one of the functions of the
Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Act. A ‘Lok
Adalat’ is defined as meaning a Lok Adalat organized
under Chapter VI of the Act by Section 2(d) thereof and
under Section 19, the Lok Adalats are organized by the
different Legal Services Authorities constituted at different
levels, consisting of the members specified therein. A Lok
Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a
compromise for settlement between the parties to a dispute in
respect of the matters specified in Sub-section (5) of Section
19 and after taking cognizance as per Section 20, a Lok
Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and
arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties with
utmost expedition guided by the principles of justice, equity,
fair play and other legal principles as per Sub-sections (3) and
(4) of Section 20. Section 21(2) makes every award made by
a Lok Adalat final and binding on all the parties to the dispute
and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. The1
(2007) 6 ALD 217
8
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025provisions of Chapter VI, thus, show a Lok Adalat to be a
different and distinct legal entity performing statutory functions
than the Legal Services Authorities constituted under the
Act. Section 22, while conferring the same powers as a Civil
Court on the Lok Adalats in respect of specified matters, also
provides the possibility for such powers of the Civil Court
being exercised by a Lok Adalat in respect of such other
matters as may be prescribed. Subject to the same, Sub-
section (2) of Section 22 gives the requisite powers to every
Lok Adalat to specify its own procedure for the determination
of any dispute coming before it. The Andhra Pradesh State
Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules”)
provide in Rule 18 for execution of awards passed by the Lok
Adalats in respect of pending cases and pre litigation cases
by the Courts specified therein and for refund of Court fee in
pending cases. The Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services
Authority Regulations, 1996 (for short “the Regulations”)
made in exercise of the statutory power under Section 29-A of
the Act, make provisions in respect of Lok Adalats in Chapter
IX. Regulation 32 regarding composition of the Lok Adalat,
Regulation 36 about functioning of the Lok Adalat and
Regulation 47 in respect of miscellaneous matters more
particularly indicate the Lok Adalat to be a separate and
independent legal entity than the Legal Services Authorities.
10. The Member-Secretary of the State Legal Services
Authority under Section 6 or the Secretary of the High Court
Legal Services Committee under Section 8A or the Secretary
of the District Legal Services Authority under Section 9 or the
9
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee
under Section 11A perform respectively such functions and
exercise respectively such powers as may be prescribed or
assigned to them. The Rules provide for the powers and
functions of the Member-Secretary of the State Authority in
Rule 4. The Regulations provide for functions of the State
Authority, powers and functions of the High Court Committee,
additional functions of the District Authority and additional
functions of the Taluk Committee, but do not provide for any
separate powers or functions for the functionaries
therein. Regulation 29 provides for the Secretary of the High
Court Committee or the District Authority or the Chairman of
the Taluk Committee convening and organizing Lok Adalats at
regular intervals. Under Regulation 30 they shall intimate the
same to the State Authority, while under Regulation 31 they
shall issue notice to the parties concerned. Under Regulation
32 they shall constitute Benches of Lok Adalats comprising of
the specified Members and the power of directly supervising
the Lok Adalats organized by the respective Bodies was given
to the Chairman of the High Court Committee, the District
Authority and the Taluk Committee but not to the Secretaries
of the High Court Committee or the District Authority under
Sub-regulation 4 of Regulation 32. The responsibility for
summoning records and their safe custody was put on the
Secretaries of the High Court Committee and District Authority
and the Chairman of the Taluk Committee under Regulation
35 and the duty of assigning specific cases to each Bench of
the Lok Adalat and preparing a cause list was also placed on
them under Regulation 36. Sub-regulation 3 of Regulation 36
10
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
puts the responsibility for making sincere efforts to bring about
a conciliatory settlement without any kind of coercion, threat
or undue influence, allurement or misrepresentation in every
case, on every Bench of the Lok Adalat and not on the
Secretaries or Chairmen. Every award of the Lok Adalat shall
be signed by the panel constituting the Lok Adalat under
Regulation 38 and the Secretaries of the High Court Legal
Services Committee or District Legal Services Authority or
Chairman of the Mandal Legal Services Committee were only
given the power of duly certifying the copies of awards. The
Secretaries of the High Court Committee or the District
Authority or the Chairman of the Taluk Committee have to
compile the results under Regulation 40 and maintain the
panels of Lok Adalat Judges under Regulation 41 and
maintain record of cases under Regulation 43. In effect and
substance, either the statutory provisions or the Rules and
Regulations referred to above only entrust secretarial
functions and ministerial responsibilities to the Secretaries to
the High Court Committee or District Authority or the
Chairman of the Taluk Committee in respect of the functioning
of the Lok Adalats, which is made more explicit by Sub-
regulation 3 of Regulation 47 which specifies that they shall
provide all assistance as may be necessary to the Lok
Adalats. Their powers or functions are nothing more or
nothing less.
11. A reading together of all the provisions, thus, clearly
discloses that the exercise of the judicial powers, performance
of judicial functions and discharge of judicial responsibilities in
11
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
respect of the disputes referred to Lok Adalats, are the
exclusive preserve of the respective Benches of Lok Adalats
and neither the Act nor the Rules nor the Regulations provide
for any delegation of such powers to any other Authority or
Functionary. The Lok Adalats in the State were not stated to
have specified their own procedure for the determination of
any dispute coming before them under Sub-section (2)
of Section 22 or Sub-regulation 4 of Regulation 47 which
provides that every Bench of the Lok Adalat may evolve its
own procedure for conducting the proceedings before it and
shall not be bound by either the Civil Procedure Code or
the Evidence Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure subject,
however, to the principles of natural justice. Bereft of any such
procedure under Section 22(2) or Regulation 47(4), there is
no provision or principle which enables the Secretaries of the
High Court Committee or the District Authority or the
Chairman of the Taluk Committee to assume jurisdiction over
the judicial powers or functions or duties or responsibilities of
a Lok Adalat, their powers, duties and functions being purely
secretarial in nature and administrative in character.”
(ii) In Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor2, it was held at para No.12
as follows:
“12. … The rule which applies is a different and not less well
recognized rule, namely, that where a power is given to do a
certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that
way or not at all. Other methods of performance are
2
AIR 1936 PC 253(2)
12
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
necessarily forbidden. This doctrine has often been applied to
Courts-Taylor v. Taylor [L.R. 1 Ch. D. 426 (at p. 431)] and
although the magistrate acting under this group of sections is
not acting as a Court” yet he is a judicial officer, and both as a
matter of construction and of good sense there are strong
reasons for applying the rule in question to Section 164.”
(iii) In Loonkaran Sethiya and Ors. Vs. Ivan E. John and Ors.3, it
was held at paras 22 to 24 as follows:
“22. Question No. 5:- Before proceeding to determine this
question, it would be well to advert to the legal position
bearing on the matter. As aptly stated in paragraph 1378 of
Volume 12 of Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition) “if
an alteration (by erasure, interlineation, or otherwise) is made
in a material part of a deed, after its execution, by or with the
consent of any party to or person entitled under it, but without
the consent of the party or parties liable under it, the deed is
rendered void from the time of the alteration so as to prevent
the person who has made or authorised the alteration, and
those claiming under him, from putting the deed in suit to
enforce against any party bound by it, who did not consent to
the alteration, any obligation, covenant, or promise thereby
undertaken or made.
23. A material alteration, according to this authoritative work,
is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the
parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or
otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally3
AIR 1977 SC 336
13
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was
originally unascertained and as such void, or which may
otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally
executed.
24. The effect of making such an alteration without the
consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of
cancelling the deed.”
10. He further submitted that the JDr had not appeared before the
Lok Adalat as the notice was not served, and therefore, it is
impersonation and thus, allowing the amendment in the absence of the
JDr is illegal.
11. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance
on the decision in Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao Vs. The District Legal
Services Authority (Lok Adalat) at Vijayawada and Ors. 4. In the
said decision, at para No.20, the following directions were issued:
“(a) we, hereby direct the members of Lok Adalat, more
particularly, the Sub-ordinate Officers dealing with the Lok
Adalat cases to verify the documents of the suit or at least the
plaint copy to find out as to whether all the parties before the
Civil Court are made parties before the Lok Adalat.
b) Photographs of the parties may also be taken at the time of
passing of the award, with signature of the parties on the
photographs, so as to avoid impersonation.
(c) Legal Services authorities, at all levels, are directed to
maintain the record of disposed off cases, namely the
applications filed, photographs along with the application,4
(2022) 1 ALD 547
14
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025documents, if any, filed along with the application and the
award passed, atleast for a period of three years from the
date of award.
(d) The members or member of the Lok Adalat shall find out
from the parties as to pendency of any other proceedings in
respect of the subject property between the parties in any
other Court and orders if any passed. The same shall also be
recorded in the order / award.
(e) The members of the Lok Adalat shall verify if the
compromise / settlement is between all the parties and if it
finds that it is not between all but some of the parties, it shall
consider if such compromise may have adverse affect on the
party who has not entered into compromise. If it so affects
award shall not be passed based on such compromise.
(f) If all the parties before the civil court are parties before the
Lok Adalat, but during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Lok Adalat, any application is filed or request is
made to delete the name of any of the parties as not being
necessary or proper party or being a formal party and non
contesting party, the Lok Adalat shall before acceding to such
request shall provide opportunity to such party before deletion
of his / her name and shall also consider the impact of the
award based on compromise / settlement between the parties
other than the party sought to be deleted on the rights of the
party sought to be deleted or alleged as proforma and non-
contesting party.
15
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / DHr
submitted that the award can be challenged under Article 226 / 227 of
the Constitution of India and not under Section 115 CPC. He further
submitted that there are no rules of procedure and strict law apply to the
proceedings before the Lok Adalat as per Section 20(4) of the Act and
equal justice and fair play would govern the Lok Adalat in determining
any matter before it. He further submitted that the revision petitioner /
JDr received substantial amount of Rs.49 lakhs out of total
consideration of Rs. Rs.50,00,000/- and it is only an attempt to avoid the
liability. He further stated that in fact, the balance amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid, but as the payment was not believed by
the execution Court and directed the DHr to pay it, the same was again
paid. He further submitted that the revision petitioner nowhere stated
that he had not received Rs.9,00,000/- which is incorporated in the
award based on the terms of compromise filed before the Legal
Services Authority, but on the other hand, it was noted in the undisputed
document of terms of compromise which is the basis of the Award. He
further submitted that the award must be in accordance with the terms
of compromise filed before the Lok Adalat, and therefore, it is only to
bring the award in line with the terms of compromise filed before the Lok
Adalat, the necessary amendment was carried out. It is also submitted
by him that irrespective of the amendments, because of receipt of
Rs.9,00,000/-, the terms of compromise and the award stipulates
payment of balance of Rs.1,00,000/- only at the time of registration of
sale deed, and therefore, the JDr cannot object for execution of the
compromise decree which was originally passed by the Lok Adlat as it
stands before its amendment. He further submitted that the decisions
relied on by the revision petitioner for material alteration in the award do
not apply to the present case as the alteration in the award is not
16
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
material and is only ancillary to what was already recorded and
irrespective of the same, the main award can be executed.
13. A perusal of the award (extracted supra) shows that there is no
dispute about the original terms of compromise filed before the Lok
Adalat which contains a statement that JDr received Rs.9,00,000/- in
addition to Rs.38,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, and therefore, it was agreed
to receive balance of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of registration while
agreeing to execute the sale deed. In fact, the award should be in
accordance with the terms of compromise. However, while preparing
the award, there was an omission to mention receipt of Rs.9,00,000/-,
however, the award is clear that the defendant / JDr shall execute a sale
deed on receipt of the said amount as mentioned therein.
14. Section 9 of the Act reads as under:
“9. District Legal Services Authority–(1) The State
Government shall, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court, constitute a body to be called the District Legal
Services Authority for every district in the State to exercise the
powers and perform the functions conferred on, or assigned
to, the District Authority under this Act.
(2) A District Authority shall consist of —
(a) the District Judge who shall be its Chairman; and
(b) such number of other members, possessing such
experience and qualifications, as may be prescribed by the
State Government, to be nominated by that Government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(3) The State Authority, shall, in consultation with the
Chairman of the District Authority, appoint a person belonging
17
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025to the State Judicial Service not lower in rank than that of a
Subordinate Judge or Civil Judge posted at the seat of the
District Authority to exercise such powers and perform such
duties under Chairman of that Committee as may be assigned
to him by such Chairman.
(4) The terms of office and other conditions relating
thereto, of members and Secretary of the District Authority
shall be such as may be determined by regulations made by
the State Authority in consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court.
(5) ……(7) xx xxx
(8) All orders and decisions of the District Authority shall
be authenticated by the Secretary or by any other officer of
the District Authority duly authorized by the Chairman of
that Authority.”
15. The duties of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority are
not akin to the jurisdiction of a Lok Adalat award. As such, the
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority has no authority to make an
amendment in the award as rightly contended by the revision petitioner.
16. The next question would be whether the whole award becomes
void and in-executable?
17. The first contention that the award is only an agreement to sell
cannot be accepted as there is admittedly a separate written agreement
before passing of the award and what is agreed through the terms of
award is to execute a registered sale deed on payment of the balance
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In passing a decree granting specific
performance, Court directs the party (defendant) to execute a registered
18
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
sale deed, on receipt of balance sale consideration, if any payable. But
in case of award passed by a Lok Adalat there cannot be any such
direction since it contains terms as agreed between the parties.
Therefore, the statements in an award do not direct any party, but
merely indicate what a party (parties) has/have done and/or has/have to
do. Therefore, in the present case merely because the terms of the
award are in the form of what a party has to do, it is not an agreement
as contended by the revision petitioner / JDr, but a decree executable.
18. In the preset case, the original award, irrespective of the
amendment, contains terms as agreed between the parties. The
amendment is in no way altering the nature of the executable terms in
the award passed by the Lok Adalat. All amendments are not material.
A material alteration is one which substantially effects any transaction.
In this case, whether or not the receipt of amounts at various spells was
mentioned in the award, the ultimate executable terms agreed between
the parties is to pay Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of registration and the
defendant agreeing to execute the sale deed. The rest of the elements
in the award are only historical background to arrive at such
negotiations. Therefore, inclusion of Rs.9,00,000/- by altering the award
by amendment does not materially change the award and moreover, it
is exactly in consonance with the agreed terms which are undisputed
and filed before the Lok Adalat. As such, the JDr in any manner is not
prejudiced by the altered term as he is not deprived of such amount
which was already received as agreed and recorded in the undisputed
document of compromise terms. Therefore, such an amendment
cannot be material alteration of the award so as to render the whole
award void and in-executable. Therefore, while agreeing with the
contention of the revision petitioner that the amendment ought not to
19
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.583 of 2025
have been done by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
since the decree can be executed ignoring the material alteration by
amendment of the award, the revision petitioner has no grievance and
therefore, the revision petitioner cannot oppose the execution.
19. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed while upholding the
executability of the award/decree subject to the observation regarding
the authority of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority to amend
the award.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
17.04.2025
RAR
[ad_1]
Source link