IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4422 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2009 IN EP 129/05 IN TLS 292/04 IN EA.175/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------ MUSTAFA.K.M,AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,KALEEKKAL VEEDU,KUTTAPPUZHA.PO, THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS.MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN MR.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA MR.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------- INDIAN OVER SEAS BANK,KUTTAPUZHA SHAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK MR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, SC BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 4422 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to have Ext.P2 order quashed and also to declare that Ext.P1 award passed by the Lok Adalat is not binding on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed E.A.175 of 2009 in E.P.129 of 2005 in TLS 292 of 2004 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. Petitioner was constrained to move the court because a warrant Is issued against him by the execution court. The respondent in this petition, who was the holder of an award passed by the Lok Adalat, instituted execution proceedings as E.P. 129 of 2005. Petitioner points out that he was not a party to the award and therefore it is not binding on him. Therefore, it is contended that the execution proceedings could not have been taken out against him and warrant ought not WPC.4422/2010. 2 to have been issued against him. The petitioner has produced the relevant documents along with this petition. 3. The respondent has entered appearance. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is not a party to the award. It is pointed out by him that even assuming that execution proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner, the respondent can proceed against the other judgment debtors. 4. There is no doubt regarding the above proposition. Since the petitioner is not a party to the award, it is not binding on him. There can be no dispute that the decree holder can proceed against the persons, who are parties to the award. Reserving the liberty of the respondent to do so, this petition is allowed, Ext.P2 order as against the petitioner stands quashed and all proceedings against him shall stand dropped. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.