IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1159 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OS.146/2008 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VISWANATHAN,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN,VADAKKOTTIL HOUSE,BUDHANOOR, MEKKU, PERINGADU MURI, ENNAKADU VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 66,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MANDIRAM, PERINGADU MURI,BUDHANOOR MEKKU, ENNAKADU VILLAGE,PIN 689 510. 2. SANTHAMMA,AGED 54,W/O.VIJAYAN,DO. DO. 3. SHIBU,AGED 32, S/O.VIJAYAN, DO. DO. 4. SHRI S.H.PANCHAPAKESAN,DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE 673 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1159 of 2011 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.146/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengannur. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint, Ext.P2 is a written statement and Ext.P3 is the report of the Commissioner. It is stated that, on 29-11-2008, the case was included in the list for trial. According to the petitioner, proof affidavit of the plaintiff and the witnesses were filed in time and they were ready to go on with the evidence. It is stated that at that stage, respondents 1 to 3, the defendants in the suit, filed an application for removing the case from the list, which was rejected by the Court. Thereafter, what transpired in the court on 29-11-2008 and till 07-12-2008 when Ext.P11 award was rendered by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chengannur, has been explained by the petitioner in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition, W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 2 : which is extracted below for reference:- “ 8. It is submitted that on 29-11- 2008, the case was adjourned to the afternoon. On 29-11-2008 afternoon, the Presiding Officer, the fourth respondent herein, informed the petitioner and his counsel that he was forwarding the case to Lok Adalat. The petitioner and his counsel, Advocate Koshy Thomas, strongly objected, stating that there was no chance of settlement and repeatedly prayed for taking evidence in the case. Bu the Court refused and kept the case pending at the Bench and the petitioner was directed to wait. At about 5.30 PM, on that day, though there was no Adalat sitting on that day, and it was after Court hours the Presiding Officer took an Adalat form and he unilaterally wrote all the conditions and clauses of a “settlement” without any discussions with the petitioner or his counsel whereby the petitioner supposedly agreed to withdraw the entire plaint claim and to surrender unconditionally the entire Item W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 3 : No.2 property in his possession to respondents 1 to 3 and he compelled the petitioner as well as his counsel to sign it. 9. The petitioner and his counsel strongly objected to the arbitrary and one sided terms. The petitioner and his counsel even went out from the premises stating he was not ready for any such settlement. But, the Presiding Officer sent a policeman from the Court and called him back and using his official power and authority, he compelled the petitioner to sign the paper prepared by him, through threats and coercion. He threatened the petitioner that he would be remanded to police custody on the grounds of Contempt of Court and entrapped in other cases also, if he refused. The petitioner and his counsel were unable to resist this illegal compulsion, pressure and duress from the Presiding Officer and had to succumb to his demand. They reluctantly signed in the Adalat form, even while repeatedly stating that they are not agreeable to the forced, one sided settlement. There was no discussions W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 4 : with regard to the terms of the agreement between the parties and terms of the Award were not agreed to by the parties, but was imposed upon them by the Presiding Officer, who acted illegally and beyond his jurisdiction and power and in a wholly arbitrary and biased manner. There was no Adalat on that day. In spite of the same, the so called settlement terms were written out in an Adalat form on a day on which there was no Adalat and the petitioner and counsel were compelled to sign the same also. Counsel were silent as they could not resist the Presiding Officer for fear of being cornered in all their other cases also and their practice destroyed. 10. The terms of the agreement are prima facie one sided and the petitioner is denied all his reliefs and rights absolutely. It is further submitted that Lok Adalat sittings were held on 7th and 14th of December 2008. As the petitioner was not amenable for such an arbitrary settlement, neither he nor his counsel attended these Adalat. But W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 5 : surprisingly, the Adalat form got signed by the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 forcibly on 29-11-2008 in the Court hall through threats, compulsion and pressure by the Presiding Officer, was misused to create Lok Adalat order dated 07-12-2008, which is wholly illegal and unsustainable. This Presiding Officer has created such problems with other parties and other counsel also and this will be clear if evidence is taken. True photocopy of the purported award of the Adalat in O.S. No.146/008 dated 07-12-2008 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit- P11.” 2. Petitioner then submits that respondents 1 to 3 had initially filed an execution petition for getting the award executed and that for non prosecution, the application was dismissed, which allegedly gave the petitioner the impression that the respondents did not intend to act upon the award obtained by them. It is stated that in the first week of January, 2011, revenue officials came to the property with police for W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 6 : measuring it out and it is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash Ext.P11 award and for a direction to restore O.S.No.146/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengannur and for disposal of the suit on merits. According to the petitioner, the award was rendered illegally and arbitrarily by the fourth respondent misusing and abusing his position as the Presiding Officer of the Court. It is alleged that the fourth respondent compelled the petitioner and his counsel to sign the award ignoring the fact that there was no Adalat sitting on 29-11-2008. It is on this basis, the petitioner seeks reliefs in this writ petition. 3. Admittedly, the award was rendered by the Legal Services Committee on 07-12-2008. Petitioner has no case that either between 29-11-2008 and 07-12-2008 or after 07- 12-2008, when Ext.P11 award was rendered or anytime before filing this writ petition, he has made any complaint about the fourth respondent's conduct either before the Legal Services Committee itself, before any court or other authority W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 7 : including this Court. Petitioner also did not, for reasons unknown, challenge the award by invoking the extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court within a reasonable time. Therefore, he did not make any complaint about the fourth respondent and the challenge now raised before this Court is highly belated and is liable to be rejected on that ground itself. 4. Going by the pleadings, it is evident that according to the petitioner, on noticing the developments of 29-11-2008, the petitioner and his counsel, who were present in Court, protested in the court itself. It is averred that they had even walked out of the Court in protest. If his counsel had really protested about the conduct of the Presiding Officer and that too in the court itself, I do not find any reason to think that the counsel would not have shown the courage to make a complaint against the Presiding Officer or at least to file an affidavit in this Court in this writ petition endorsing the contentions of the petitioner. Even apart from all these, it is to be noticed that apart from the petitioner, his counsel and the W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 8 : Presiding Officer and the parties to the dispute, the other members of the Legal Services Committee, who have signed the award, also are not impleaded in this writ petition. In such circumstances, I cannot accept the reckless and unsubstantiated allegations raised by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer, who has now been transferred from Chengannur. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that this writ petition is only to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the allegations raised by the petitioner shows that without any basis or supporting materials, petitioner has made reckless allegations against the Legal Services Committee and the Presiding Officer. This blameworthy conduct on the part of the petitioner deserves to be discouraged, by imposing heavy costs on the petitioner. I, therefore, impose costs of `15,000/- on the petitioner, which the petitioner shall remit before the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. It is directed that, in the event the petitioner fails to do so, this W.P.(C) No.1159/2011 : 9 : judgment will have the force of a decree and it will be open to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee to get the decree executed against the petitioner through a Civil Court. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge