IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9380 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------- OS.547/2005 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ............................................ PETITIONER: ----------------- PHILOMINA BABY, W/O.GEORGE BABY MUDAVASSERY HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O., PIN-682 511 ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- VARGHESE @ GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.LATE PETER, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE VALLARPADAM HOUSE, VALLARPADAM P.O. MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.9380 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 26 day of March 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.547 of 2005 and in O.S.No.1305 of 2005 and to further declare Ext.P8 sale deed executed by the petitioner is null and void. At the outset, I may like to point out that the intention of the Legislature behind the Legal Services Authorities Act and the conduct of Lok Adalaths is to have an amicable settlement between the parties. But, unfortunately this is a case where further in rods are made and it is being converted into broader battle field which is totally against the object of the Legislature itself. Lok Adalaths are presided over by competent judicial officers and members as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. In this case where the award is produced as Ext.P6 would show that a senior District Judge and an Advocate presided over as officers and after negotiations the parties entered into a settlement. A reading of the award would show that the defendant in the suit agreed to reconvey the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within six months from 22.8.2006 and the WP(C) 9380/2008 -:2:- plaintiff agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and that it was mutually agreed that the suit shall be dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff was also given the right to get refund of the court fee. The plaintiff and his counsel, the defendant and her counsel signed the award and it was also signed by the Presiding Officer and the member. In the light of that the suit was withdrawn and in pursuance of the same the other case, viz., O.S.No.1305 of 2005 was also withdrawn where also all concerned had signed. Thereafter, the defendant in the suit had executed a document in favour of the plaintiff as per the terms of the award and thereby had complied with the same. Now the writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Lok Adalath as well as to declare that the document executed is invalid. I am afraid that such a contention cannot be allowed to be raised after complying in part with the terms of the award. If a person is mislead, certainly he would have known it at least at the time when as per the terms of the award she was bound to execute the document. If she executes a document and later turns out and wants to unsettle the dispute on the ground of fraud, it cannot be allowed. Here, two competent Presiding Officers with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the parties had arrived at a settlement, signed the document and had also implemented the terms of the document, one cannot turn round after a lapse of years to challenge the WP(C) 9380/2008 -:3:- award saying that it is vitiated by fraud. If these type of litigations are entertained, it will be undermining the system of the alternate Disputes Redressal Forums. Therefore, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the writ petition. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-