IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 589 of 2011(O) PLF 422/2010 IN EP.349/2010 of IIND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ............................... PETITIONER ------------------ K.SREEKUMARY AMMA, KAMALAVILASAM BUNGLAU, KEEZHTHOTTAM WARD, PARASSALA VILLAGE, PARASSALA. BY ADVS. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN-695121, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. K.PRABHA KUMARI, KUZHAKKATTUKONATHU KULANGARA VILAYIL, ADUMANKADU WARD, PARASUVAKKAL VILLAGE, PARASSALA, PIN-695502. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RKM OP(C) NO.29601/2011 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE LOK ADALAT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER P2 : COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 09.10.2010 P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2010 P4 : COPY OF THE EP.NO.349/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA P4(a) : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE MUNSIFF'S COURT RESPONDENT EXIHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE RKM THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.589 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Respondents 1 and 2 are served but there is no response from them. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2, award and Ext.P3, order passed by the Adalath organized by the Legal Services Committee, Neyyattinkara (first respondent herein) on the ground that she has not signed the settlement based on which Ext.P2, award was passed. 3. The second respondent filed a complaint against petitioner before the first respondent. Based on a settlement allegedly reached between petitioner and second respondent, first respondent passed Ext.P2, award. Complaining that the terms of the settlement are not complied by petitioner, second respondent approached the first respondent whereon the latter passed Ext.P3, order directing the second respondent to execute the award. Pursuant to Ext.P3, order the second respondent filed execution petition before learned Munsiff, Neyyattinkara (Ext.P4). 4. It is contended by learned counsel that Ext.P2, award O.P(C) No.589 of 2011 -: 2 :- and consequently Ext.P3, order are null and void for the reason that petitioner has not signed the settlement. It is contended by learned counsel that first respondent cannot adjudicate on a dispute but can only decide pursuant to the settlement reached between parties. In so far as petitioner has not signed the so called settlement there is no settlement in the eye of law so that, based on a settlement the first respondent could pass Ext.P2, award. 5. I have gone through Ext.P2, award . It is seen from Ext.P2, that the husband of petitioner has signed on her behalf. But it is not shown that husband of petitioner was authorized and empowered by petitioner to do so. The award does not mention so. If that be so, that the husband has signed Ext.P2, cannot be taken as amounting to petitioner signing the same. It must therefore be taken that petitioner has not signed Ext.P2, award. 6. Then the question is, what is the consequence thereof. Regulation 33(1) of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998, states that every award of the Lok Adalath shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the panel constituting the Lok Adalth. Referring to the said provision a Division Bench of Court in Leela v. Manager, O.P(C) No.589 of 2011 -: 3 :- M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008 [1] KHC 564) held that if the award is not signed by the parties it is non-est in the eye of law. I stated that petitioner has not signed the award and that her husband who is seen to have signed it, is not shown to have signed with authority of petitioner. If that be so the award cannot stand. Consequence is that Ext.P2, award, Ext.P3, order and Ext.P4, execution petitioner are unsustainable. Original Petition is allowed. Exhibits P2, award and Ext.P3, order are set aside. Consequently, Ext.P4, execution petition will stand quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv