IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 32704 of 2001(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SIVASADANATHU, CHANGAYIL, ULAVAKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. ADDL. PETITIONER 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED. 2. OMANA AMMA, W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SIVASADANATHU CHANGAYIL, ULAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. 3. MADHUKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 40, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI SIVASADANATHU CHANGAYIL, ULAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. 4. REMA DEVI, AGED 37 , W/O. SANKARA PILLAI, SIVASADANATHU, CHANGAYIL, ULAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. 5. GEETHA, AGED 34 YEARS, PRABHAKARAN UNNITHAN, SIVASADANATHU, CHANGAYIL, ULAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. Addl. PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 19.12.05 IN IA. 18509/05. BY ADV. MR.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. RAJAMMA, PADINJARE PURAYIL, CHANGAYIL ULAVAKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. OP. NO.32704/2001 2. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PALAVILAYIL VEEDU, PADINJARE PURAYIL, CHANGAYIL ULAVAKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. 3. LOK ADALATH TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. MR.R.PADMAKUMAR FOR R THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.53304/2001 IN OP. NO.32704/2001 DISMISSED 25.05.2009 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18.12.93 IN OS. 209/93 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD. P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 209/93 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD. P3:- COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LIK ADALATH, TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, MAVELIKARA DT. 17.12.99. P4:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT FILED IN AS. 101/94 DT. 17.12.99. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT. 11.4.01 IN IA. 413/2000 AND IA. 414/2000 IN AS. NO.101.94. P6:- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPROMISE PETITION DT. 17.12.99 BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH. P7:- COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 17.12.99 OF THE LOK ADALATH IN A.S. 101/94. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ OP NO. 32704 OF 2001 (R) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners seek to get Exts.P3, P4 and P5 quashed. They are also seeking a direction for the restoration of AS 101/94 on the file of the Additional District Court I, Mavelikkara for disposal on merits. 2. According to the petitioners, they are the wife and children of late Sri.Ramachandran Pillai, who had originally filed this original petition. The deceased was the plaintiff in OS No.209/93 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Harippad. The suit was decreed against respondents 1 and 2 and Ext.P1 is the judgment. It would appear that the respondents 1 and 2 filed AS No.101/94 on the file of Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. It would appear that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat conducted by District Legal Services Authority, Alleppey. 3. It would appear that the matter was accordingly referred to the Lok Adalat where Ext.P4 compromise petition was filed on the basis of which the Lok Adalat passed Ext.P3 award. OP No.32704/01 :2 : Late Sri.Ramachandran Pillai filed this original petition mainly contending that he did not sign Ext.P4 compromise petition or Ext.P3 award nor did he authorise his counsel to sign Exts.P3 or P4. It is his case that without his consent, his counsel signed the aforesaid documents and invited Ext.P3 award, which is adverse to the interest of the deceased. 4. In this context, it is also to be mentioned that immediately on coming to know of Exts.P3 and P4, the deceased approached the Additional District Court I Mavelikkara where AS 101/94 filed by respondents 1 and 2 was pending and sought review of Ext.P3. However by Ext.P5 order, the District Court held the application to be not maintainable particularly in view of the provisions contained under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is thereupon that the deceased filed this original petition and on his expiry, his legal representatives have come on record as the petitioners. 5. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is mainly that the deceased had not signed either Exts.P3 or P4 and in view of this, Ext.P3 award is non-est in law. He has referred me to Regulation 33(1) of the State Legal Services Authority OP No.32704/01 :3 : Regulations 1998, which provides that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the panel constituting the Lok Adalat. He also relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Leela v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.(2008(1) KLT 705). 6. As already noticed both Exts.P3 and P4 show that the deceased, the predecessor of the petitioners herein, is not a signatory to either of the two documents. If that be so, there is patent non compliance with Clause 33(1) of the Regulations 1998 and in that view of the matter and also particularly in the light of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the judgment referred to above, the award is to be taken as non-est in law. Consequently, Ext.P3 will stand quashed and it is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment before the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha, which shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act and with notice to all the parties concerned. Original petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp