IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 763 of 2009(N) ----------------------------------------- OS.146/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER: VISHWANATHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VADAKOTTIL HOUSE, BUDHANOOR, MAKKU, PERINGADU MURI, ENNAKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU RESPONDENT: VIJAYAN, AGED 64, GOPALAKRISHNAN, MANDIRAM, PERINGAD MURI, BUDHANUOR MEKKU, ENNAKADU VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.763 of 2009 N -------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. Exhibit P2 is an award passed at Lok Adalath held by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chengannur, wherein, Sub Judge Sri.Panchapakesan as also Advocate Sri.K.Santhosh Kumar were mediators. As per the said award, the suit O.S.No.146/08 was settled between the parties. Petitioner was the plaintiff in that suit and himself as also defendants 1 to 3 in the suit have signed in the compromise and the Judicial Member as also Advocate Sri.K.Santhosh Kumar, who was the other mediator, have signed in the award. Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff as also the counsel for the defendants have also signed in the compromise, whereby, the said award was passed. 3. The prayer in this writ petition is to set aside the award so passed at the Lok Adalath on 7.12.2008 and to restore O.S.No.146/08 to file. WPC 763/09 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the petitioner as also his counsel have signed in the settlement; that it was not on 7th December, 2008 that they signed, but on 29th November, 2008 in court and that the petitioner was signing in the compromise as directed by the counsel, probably on compulsion from the Presiding Officer. 4. It is worthy to note that the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff Sri.Koshy Thomas has no such case that he was being compelled by the Presiding Officer to sign in the compromise and the petitioner has not raised a little finger against his Lawyer complaining that he has acted against his interest in any manner whatsoever. It appears that the attempt of the petitioner is to get over Exhibit P2 by making some allegation or the other. It is also admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not illiterate. There is absolutely no merit in this writ petition assailing the award passed pursuant to a compromise WPC 763/09 3 arrived at between the parties in the suit, against which no appeal lies. In the result, I dismiss this writ petition in limine. 8th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv