IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5871 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------- AS.17/2006 of LOK ADALAT, LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA OS.331/2002 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MADHUKUMAR, AMBIKA NILAYAM, NEERKUNNAM MURI VANDANAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. JOHN BRITTO SRI. C.A. RAJEEV RESPONDENT: ---------------- MOHANACHANDRAN, KALAKATTU VEEDU, VANDANAM P.O, NEERKUNNAM MURI, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5871 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This writ petition is preferred to direct the Lok Adalat to consider Exts.P3 and P4 applications and pass appropriate orders. A brief facts would reveal that the suit in O.S.No.331/2002 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha was filed for an injunction. After consideration of the materials, the trial court dismissed the suit. Against that judgment and decree an appeal was preferred as A.S.No.17/2006 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alappuzha and then it was referred to the Adalat. On consensus of the parties, the Lok Adalat passed an award and for proper understanding I shall extract the same as follows: “The defendant/respondent admitted that the plaintiff/appellant originally had right over an extent of 13 cents in the plaint schedule survey on the basis of Ext.A1. On the basis of the said admission, it is decided to measure out the plaint schedule property having an extent of 13 cents including the road on the basis of Ext.A1 and the portion of the property taken away for the purpose of the road on the south will be separately demarcated and shown in a plan to be prepared by an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor. Both parties agreed for a settlement in conformity with the terms specified above”. 2 2. So a reading of the said understanding between the parties would show that the property under Ext.A1 is to be demarcated and also the road which is taken away from that property to be separately located and the fate of the suit will depend upon the said measurements. Now the plaintiff would contend that the property of the defendant also has to be measured with respect to his documents and therefore he has moved applications before the Adalat as Exts.P3 and P4. 3. I am afraid that the Adalat is not having the competency to consider those applications when the parties after due deliberations in the presence of the members of the Adalat and the advocates appearing for them have entered into an agreement, how the matter is to be disposed of and subsequently if they are allowed to detract from the said understanding, the very purpose of the constitution of the Adalat under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act will get annulled. Therefore, I find that the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted and the same is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps