IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9884 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 514/08 IN EP 117/01 IN PLD.19/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAGADHEESH CHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 48 YEARS, MUNDUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., KIDANGARA BRANCH. 2. MAHESWARI PRADEEP KUMAR, VERRORMUTTITHARAKUNNEL, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY. 3. M.V.PRIYA, W/O.MADHUSOODANAN, JYOTHIRMAYI (PALAPARAMBU), KIDANGARA MURI, VELIYANAD. R1 BY ADV. MR.N.P.SAMUEL R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.9884 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records relating to Ext.P7 and P8 order and quash the same and all proceedings in E.P.No.117/2007 in PLD No.19/2001 of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. ii. to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.117/2001, which emanated from an award passed in the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Service Authorities Act. The decree holder, a bank namely 'Federal Bank' filed the execution petition before the Sub Court, Allappuzha, on WPC.9884/09 2 default of the judgment debtors to honour the terms settled in the Lok Adalat, which formed part of the award rendered by that Adalat. In the execution proceedings, the property belonging to the present petitioner/2nd judgment debtor was brought to sale to realise the debt due to the decree holder under the award. After sale was conducted, petitioner moved an application under Order 21 Rule 95 of the CPC before the court below impeaching the sale contending that in the award passed by the Lok Adalat he subscribed his signature without understanding the terms thereof. On that ground, he objected to the delivery sought for by the decree holder of the property brought to sale, which was confirmed by the court. The execution court overruling the objections of the petitioner/2nd judgment debtor ordered for delivery of the property. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs aforementioned. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned WPC.9884/09 3 counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, submitted that at the time of receiving the writ petition on the file of this Court an order had been passed to refer the matter to Lok Adalat, and as such, without getting a report from the Adalat, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose the petition on merits. To support that line of argument canvassed the learned counsel relied on Bose v. Gervasis (2009 (2) KLT 158), wherein it has been stated that once the case is referred to Lok Adalat, the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter thereafter. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in Ex.F.A.Nos.35/2004 and 36/2004, copy of which is produced as Ext.R1 (a) along with a statement filed by the counsel for the 1st respondent contended that there is no merit in the case presented by the petitioner, and the filing of the writ petition is yet another experimental venture to delay and protract the execution proceedings, and thereby, deny the decree holder from getting the fruits of the decree. An opportunity extended to the petitioner by this Court to examine whether he could save his WPC.9884/09 4 property which had already been sold by having a settlement talk with the opposite party in an Adalat, is being taken advantage as evident from the argument canvassed that the matter covered by the writ petition cannot be disposed on merits. Though such an order to refer the matter to Lok Adalat has been made by this Court, no such reference to Adalat has taken place so far. Further more, this was a case where the parties have settled the disputes in an Adalat and an award was passed strictly in consonance of the provisions under the Legal Services Authorities Act. Once an award is passed, it has the effect of a decree and no appeal will lie against that award. The petitioner herein impeached the correctness of the award before the execution court contending that he subscribed his signature in the award without knowing and understanding the terms of the award. It has also come out that he was a party to the proceedings taken at the instance of some claimants, over which two appeals had come to this Court and they were disposed on merits as evidenced by Ext.R1(a) judgment. The facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that the petitioner WPC.9884/09 5 has approached this Court and filed this writ petition to obstruct and delay the execution of a validly passed decree. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed with costs of first respondent, quantified at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand). S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009