IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 26879 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.123/2009 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.E.SKARIAH, AGED 54, S/O. K.C.EAPEN, KOCHUPURACKAL, PULLAD P.O., KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. O.M.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 70, S/O. MATHEW, ODIKANDATHIL, KARUNGAZHA P.O., PULLAD MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. MATHEW THOMAS, AGED 45, S/O. O.M.THOMAS, ODIKANDATHIL, KARUNGAZHA P.O., PULLAD MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.12, BUILDING NO.354, LULU AVENUE, BLOCK 311, MANAMA, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN. 3. THIRUVALLA TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH FOR R1 SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.26879 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March 2011 Judgment In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the following reliefs are sought for : i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, set aside Exhibit P2 and may pass a decree or award in terms of Exhibit P1. ii. issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case ; and iii.award costs to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner instituted OS No.123/09 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. It was a suit for specific performance. The details of the plaint allegations are given in the petition, which are not very relevant for the present purpose for the simple reason that this petition is being disposed of on a short ground. Suffice to say that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The parties entered into a compromise and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat in terms of the compromise. In the compromise, though it was agreed that the entire court fee paid by the petitioner will be refunded, in the award passed by the Adalat, it was confined to half of the court fee paid by WPC 26879/10 2 him. That part of the award passed by the Adalat is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Obviously, the order directing refund of only half of the court fee, cannot be sustained in view of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : "21. Award of Lok Adalat - (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court, or as the case may be an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at by the Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub- section (1) of Section 20, the court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).” 4. In the light of the above provision, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the entire court fee paid by him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and that portion of the impugned order, directing refund of only half of the court fee paid, is set aside. The entire court fee paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta WPC 26879/10 3 WPC 26879/10 4