M.P.No.1 of 2014 in A.S.No.315 of 2010 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. Being aggrieved by the decree passed in the suit for specific performance of contract and consequential injunction, A.S.No.315 of 2010 was filed by the defendants 5 and 6. 2. Pending appeal, it appears that the parties have entered into a compromise and recorded their compromise before the Lok Adalat held on 17.03.2011 headed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.N.Vallinayagam (Retd.) and two other members namely Mr.S.Arumugam and Ms.Pon.Jayabharathi. Along with this appeal, yet another appeal in A.S.No.587 of 2010 preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 were also taken up and the award was passed in terms of settlement. 3. In the said award, the parties were present before the Lok Adalat and affixed their signature and produced a Memo of Understanding entered between them on 17.03.2011. The Memo of Understanding executed by the parties also form part of the award. 4. While the fact being so, the appellants Mathiyalagan and Thilagavathi had taken out a petition in M.P.No.1 of 2014 alleging that the Memo of Compromise and the later settlement before the Lok Adalat was at the instance of one 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Gowrishankar, who was the assistant of B.Ranganathan, former DMK MLA. Due to his physical influence, fear and threat, they entered into a compromise and the said compromise was not out of their own and free will and accord. It is alleged that the petitioners had taken to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-urban, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai and where they illegally detained by the police on 14.11.2010, before their signatures were obtained in the deed of compromise. It is also further alleged that the said Mr.B.Ranganathan, the former DMK MLA is so powerful and the police were hand cuffed with him and therefore, he was forced to sign the compromise, which was inequitable, and the present petition is filed after the change of the Government. 5. When the matter came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court on 20.02.2014 directed the petitioners/appellants to serve notice on the proposed respondents 6 and 7 and the private notice was also permitted. From the Registry records, this Court finds that steps to the proposed respondents were not taken. 6. Besides the default on the part of the petitioners to serve notice on the proposed respondents on whom the grave allegations were made, this Court also find the averments made in the petition to nullify the Lok Adalat award also not sustainable. The petitioners state the they were taken to police on 14.11.2010 and were detained illegally and forcibly asked to sign some documents in the name of compromise deed. Then they should have questioned the validity of the documents at 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the earliest point of time. According to the terms of settlement recorded by the Lok Adalat vide its award dated 17.03.2011, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered only on 17.03.2011 and not on 14.11.2010, the day on which the petitioners were alleged to have been taken to a illegal custody or on the subsequent date i.e., on 14.11.2010. That apart, on 17.03.2011, the petitioners had appeared in person before the Lok Adalat and in the Lok Adalat, the award has been passed only on satisfaction that the petitioners and all other parties, who are signatory to the documents, unequivocally expressed their consent to enter into a Memo of Understanding. 7. To get over the latches in preferring this petition, it is particularly stated in the affidavit that the petitioners were put under threat and fear and they came out from the said threat only after the change of the Government i.e., after DMK Government was ousted out from the power, the party to which the said Ranganathan, was an MLA. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the DMK party was ousted from the power in the general election held in the month of April 2011 and the new Government took charge in the month of May 2011. But this petition has been filed only on 13.02.2014. Therefore, this Court could not find any justifiable cause or reason to believe that the petitioner was under the fear and threat at the hands of the former DMK MLA i.e., B.Ranganathan. Even after the DMK Government was ousted from power and there is no plausible explanation in the petition to suspect the consent expressed by the parties before the Lok Adalat while entering the compromise on 17.03.2011 not a valid consent. It is also to be noted that whatever 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the threat alleged to have been faced by the petitioners, even if it is true, when they appeared before the Lok Adalat, along with their counsel they should have refused to sign the compromise memo or they should have expressed that they were forcibly brought to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat headed by the former Judge of this Court, cannot be suspected about their judicial action on a flimsy reason, which has been agitated nearly 3 years after the Lok Adalat award. 8. Therefore, this Court finds no fruitful purpose in retaining this petition on file. Hence the petition is closed as devoid of merits. 24.02.2022 rpl 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. rpl M.P.No.1 of 2014 in A.S.No.315 of 2010 24.02.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis