IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4094 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (E.A. NO. 2/2010 IN E.P.NO.34/2009 IN PLP.NO.74/2009 OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSE MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, JOSE VILLA, CHERIYANADU MURI AND VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.MANOJ KUMAR, MR.IYPE JOSEPH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ANNA SUSSAN GEORGE, KODAKERIL HOUSE, CHERIYANADU MURI AND VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.4094 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd February 2010 Judgment This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs : “i. To call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 and set aside the same by allowing the petitioner to satisfy award by granting six months' time in EP No.34/2009 in PLP No.74/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengannur. ii. To grant 6 months' time to complete the construction works as per Exhibit P3 award in PLP No.74/09 on the file of the Lok Adalat, Chengannur.” 2. The petitioner claims to be a contractor. He entered into an agreement with the husband of the respondent for construction of a residential house on WPC 4094/10 2 29.12.2007. Ext.P2 is the said agreement. It is pointed out that Ext.P2 did not specify any time limit for completion of the residential building. The petitioner submits that since there was scarcity of river sand and other items, he was unable to complete the construction. He submits that the agreement also provides for payment of additional amounts. The construction was started in January 2008. The petitioner would submit that soon thereafter, the husband of the respondent expired and that arrested the construction. Suffice to say that disputes arose between them. The petitioner claims that he has spent an amount of 1,97,247/- upto April 2009. He admits that he had received Rs.9,40,000/- from the respondent as well as her husband till March 2009. 3. It appears that the respondent approached the Lok Adalat as PLP No.74/09, complaining about the conduct of the petitioner and about the amount received by him. In the Adalat, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, which was reduced into writing and an award was WPC 4094/10 3 passed as Ext.P3. The petitioner says that thereafter, he continued the construction and completed the brick work upto roof level and it has to be concreted. He submits that for reasons beyond his control, he could not complete the work within the time stipulated in the award. The respondent therefore, took out execution proceedings in terms of the award and now, the property of the petitioner has been attached. The petitioner prays for extension of time to complete the work. 4. There is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. It was agreed between the parties that the construction shall be completed and the building will be handed over to the respondent by 15.07.2009. The award was passed by the Adalath to the said effect. Now, we are in February 2010. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was unable to complete the construction by 15.07.2009, it was open to him to take such steps as are available to him in law earlier. He did not do so. Even when the respondent moved the Execution Petition, the petitioner did not do WPC 4094/10 4 anything. Now, when his property has been attached, he suddenly moves this Court seeking extension of time. 5. I think such a course cannot be entertained. The parties have voluntary entered into an agreement and reduced it into writing and an award was also passed to that effect, which, the petitioner was bound to honour. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner has any grievance, he will be free to approach the appropriate authority, highlighting his grievance. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to do so, this Writ Petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 4094/10 5