IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 96 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/09/2009 IN EP.244/2009 IN AP.180/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- P.J.KURIAKOSE, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, MANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 613. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ABRAHAM KURIAKOSE, PALAKUZHIPPIL VEEDU, MANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 613. 2. TOMY CHACKO, PALAKUZHIPPIL VEEDU, MANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 613. 3. A.K.THOMAS(MEMBER,MANJOOR PANCHAYATH) ARAYATH VEEDU, MANJOOR PANCHAYATH, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 613. ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.96 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of July, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 25-09-2009 in E.P.No.244 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Vaikom executing the award of Lok Adalath in A.P.No.180 of 2008. Petitioner, alleging that the public way himself and others are using has been obstructed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by constructing fence at a length of more than 25 meters trespassing into the said public way filed a complaint in the Vaikom Taluk Legal Services Committee to redress his grievance. That committee obtained report through an advocate who confirmed substantially the allegations made by petitioner. In the meantime there was a proceeding pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate to whom the Village Officer reported about respondent Nos.1 and 2 allegedly trespassing into the public road and constructing a fence which caused obstruction to passage of vehicles through the said road. Taluk Legal Services Committee appointed an advocate to assist petitioner in filing a suit for redressal of his grievance. That lawyer was a member of the Lok Adalath and as petitioner would say, instead of filing the suit the C.R.P.No.96 of 2010 : 2 : lawyer prepared a report after inspection of the place where obstruction was allegedly caused and that report also confirmed allegations made by petitioner. The matter was placed before the Lok Adalath where the issue was settled between petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly, an award was passed. Since respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not comply with the award, petitioner filed E.P.No.244 of 2009 in the court of learned Munsiff requesting to execute the award. It happened that the very same lawyer who had earlier submitted report regarding the matter was appointed by the executing court but he is said to have come up with a report that complaint is not correct. The executing court observed that petitioner has not filed any objection to that report , recorded satisfaction and closed the E.P. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was not true to facts, obstruction still persists and hence executing court ought to have taken necessary steps to execute the award. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contend that the award is not executable and at any rate, there is no reason to go beyond the report of Advocate Commissioner. 2. I have gone through the copy of award which states that if respondent No.1 has caused any obstruction in such a way C.R.P.No.96 of 2010 : 3 : as to reduce width of existing public road, that obstruction will be removed in the presence of respondent No.3, a member of local panchayath. It is also stated that respondent No.1 has agreed that he will not cause any obstruction to the user of road by the petitioner and that obstruction in the road will be removed under the responsibility of respondent No.3. True, the award does not specifically say that in case respondent No.1 or 3 did not do as stated therein, petitioner could get obstruction removed from the road. But, it is not incorporation of such a statement in the award that confers jurisdiction on civil court to execute the award of Lok Adalath. Jurisdiction for the court to execute award emanates from Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act which states that every award of Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of the civil court. The award is therefore executable in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). Therefore preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has to fail. 3. Then the next question is whether based on the report of Advocate Commissioner executing court was justified in recording satisfaction and closing the E.P. It is seen from the order under challenge that petitioner had not preferred any objection to the report of Advocate Commissioner. But, it is seen C.R.P.No.96 of 2010 : 4 : from a copy of B diary of the executing court that on 07-09-2009 executing court directed Advocate Commissioner to file report on or before 29-09-2009 and on 22-09-2009 obviously as the report was filed, executing court posted the E.P to 25-09-2009 for objection. That day recording that no objection was filed, satisfaction was recorded and E.P. was closed. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to file objection to the report. Since the day intervening between filing of report and impugned order was only three, there is some merit in that contention. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to give petitioner opportunity to file his objection to the report submitted by Advocate Commissioner. In case such an objection is preferred, the matter has to be enquired into by the executing court and if obstruction still persisted that has to be removed in tune with the direction contained in the award. It will be open to both sides to adduce evidence. The executing court can depute its Amin with the assistance of Village Officer concerned so that, the Village Officer can identify the public road where the obstruction is caused and if such obstruction still persisted, the Amin could remove it as ordered by the executing court. In the light of what I have stated above, I am inclined to set aside the order under C.R.P.No.96 of 2010 : 5 : challenge. Resultantly this revision petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 25-09-2009 recording satisfaction and closing the E.P is set aside and execution petition is remitted to the court of learned Munsiff, Vaikom for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above. Parties shall appear in the executing court on 31-07-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-