IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30839 of 2005(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU GEORGE, LAYA GARDENS, UMBERNADU MURI, KALLUMALA, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NADUVALLY FINANCIERS REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, SAM VARGHESE, NADAVALLIL, PYNUMCODU, MAVELIKARA. 2. LOK ADALATH, TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, MAVELIKARA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOK ADALATH. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.E.RAFEEK FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5.12.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 30839/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE AWARD DTD.24.11.01 IN O.S.NO.31/98 BY R2. P2. COPY OF THE I..A.NO.589/02 IN O.S.NO.31/98 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.10.02 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVALIKKARA. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.RP.NO.49/03 OF THIS COURT. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.30839 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award of Lok Adalath, Mavelikkara, whereby O.S.No.31/1998 before the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara, has been settled between the parties. The petitioner also has signed the award through his power of attorney. The petitioner now challenges that award on the ground of alleged fraud. The petitioner's power of attorney holder signed Ext.P1 award of the Lok Adalath with open eyes with full knowledge of all the consequences thereof. Thereafter the petitioner turns round and challenges that award. The petitioner relies on the decision in Moni Mathai & Ors. v. Federal Bank Ltd. [2003 (1) KLJ 406] in support of the proposition that power under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, would be applicable only against filing of appeal against the award and if there is patent illegality, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's contention in this writ petition is on the validity of the claim of the plaintiff, which is not covered by Moni Mathai' case (supra). w.p.c.30839/05 2 The patent illegality referred to in that judgment should be in the matter of passing of the award itself and not regarding the merits of the contentions between the parties. The contention now raised by the petitioner is only regarding the merits of the contentions of the 1st respondent. That is not a matter which can be looked into even by this Court since the power of attorney holder of the petitioner singed the award with full knowledge of the contentions of both parties. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P1 award and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30839/05 3