IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 397 of 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/06/2010 IN EP.962/2008 IN PL.27/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): J.D.NOS.2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ERIYAD PAY BAZAAR MAHALLU JAMA ATH ERIYAD VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY K.A.ABDUL SALAM,. 2. K.A.ABDUL SALAM, MAHALLU COMMITTEE SECRETARY, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): D.H. -------------------------------- SALAHUDEEN , S/O.EAREZHATH ABDUL RAHIMAN, ERIYAD VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, 680 664. ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.397 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This revision is filed by judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3 in E.P. No.962 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kodungallur executing the award passed by the District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur in PL. No.27 of 2005. Petitioners raised certain objections regarding maintainability of the execution petition such as under Section 22E(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) respondent cannot straight away file the execution petition in the civil court, the Lok Adalath has to transmit the award made by it to the civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court has to execute the order as if it where a decree. According to the learned counsel dispute raised by the respondent came within the purview of the Wakf Act and in view of Sec.85 of the Wakf Act civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and hence the 'court' referred to in Sec.22E (5) of the Act should be the Wakf Tribunal. Petitioners have also a contention that the Legal Services Authority has no jurisdiction to pass award since the dispute raised is not coming under Sec.9 of C.R.P. No.397 of 2010 -: 2 :- the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that executing court has not considered the above contentions and passed a speaking order. Learned counsel has given to me a copy of the award of the Lok Adalath. 2. In the nature of the order passed by the learned Munsiff it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions in this proceeding. It is seen that executing court has not considered the objections raised by petitioners and taken a decision. Hence the order under challenge dated June 28, 2010 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, petition is allowed. Order dated June 28, 2010 in E.P. No.962 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kodungallur executing the award in PL. No.27of 2005 of the District Legal Services Authority is set aside and E.P. No.962 of 2008 is remitted to the court below for fresh decision after considering the objections raised by the petitioners. Interlocutory Application No.1907 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv