IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18814 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BASIL VARGHESE, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, BLAYIL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.K.VINODKUMAR (707/89) SMT.M.SANTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.C.GEORGE, AGE 64, S/O. CHACKO, KATTUPADATHU HOUSE, PERINGATTU, KADUNGAMANGLAM, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT KATTUPADATH HOUSE, H.NO.5/258 D, MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN - 682 314. 2. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX ERNAKULAM, REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETRY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM. GP SMT. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18814 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBIT EXT.P1- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPROMISE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ADALATH IN O.S.955 OF 2009 IN THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM AND SIGNED BY THE NON JUDICIAL MEMBER OF THE ADALATH. (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18814/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2.Petitioner is a plaintiff in O.S.955/2009 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam and the first respondent is the defendant. The Suit was referred for mediation and settlement before the Lok Adalath organized by the District Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam, the second respondent. It is stated that when the matter came up for consideration before the Adalath, petitioner and the first respondent compromised the dispute among themselves and filed a compromise petition. However, it was later found that the counsel for the first respondent, who signed the compromise petition and Ext.P1 proceedings had not filed vakkalath. There upon, the Presiding Officer refused to sign the Award and the Suit was returned to the Trial Court. It is stated that the Suit is posted for trial in the list. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed, praying to direct the second respondent to pass an award as per the terms of Ext.P1 compromise. W.P.(C).18814/2011 2 3.Strictly speaking, Having regard to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act and the Regulations, the objection of the Presiding Officer is unassailable. Therefore I cannot find fault with the stand of the Presiding Officer in refusing to sign the Award. However, having regard to the fact that the parties to the Suit have settled the dispute and have filed a compromise petition, the compromise should be given effect to. Taking note of the fact that the Suit is already transferred back to the Sub Court, where it is now posted for trial, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 4.The counsel who has signed compromise and Ext.P1, representing the defendant in the Suit, will file his vakkalath before the Trial Court. Once the vakkalath is filed as above, Trial Court will transfer the file to the Lok Adalath and on receipt thereof, Lok Adalath will pass Award in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5.In order to achieve the aforesaid purpose, I direct that further proceedings in the Suit will stand stayed. W.P.(C).18814/2011 3 6.Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of a writ petition before the Sub Court for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs