N.T.VASU S/O APPUNNI v. PADINHAREPURAKKAL ARAMUGHAN

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934** ## **OP(C).NO. 2896 OF 2012 (O) ------------------------------------** **E.P. NO.79 OF 2010 AND E.P. NO.141 OF 2010 IN O.S. NO.120 OF 2004, SUB COURT, TIRUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------** **N.T.VASU S/O APPUNNI,NELLIKKATHARAYIL,VETTOM AMSOM PADIYAM DESOM,P.O. VETTOM,TIRUR TALUK PIN:676 501.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **PADINHAREPURAKKAL ARAMUGHAN S/O RAMAN,VETTOM AMSOM,PADIYAM DESOM P.O. VETTOM,PIN:676 501,TIRUR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN BY ADV. SRI.M.N.MANMADAN BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **O.P(C) NO.2896 OF 2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, TIRUR.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF E.P. NO.79 OF 2010 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, TIRUR. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF E.P. NO.141 OF 2010 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, TIRUR.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **“C.R.”** ## **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.** **==================================== O.P(C) No. 2896 of 2012 ==================================== Dated this the 21[st] day of January, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** The main question raised for a decision is whether an award passed by the Lok Adalat could be filed in the court which referred the case and execution sought for, without the Lok Adalat transmitting the award to such court? 2. Respondent filed O.S. No.120 of 2004 in the Sub Court, Tirur against petitioner for recovery of money. The dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat where Ext.P1, award was passed for Rs.1,35,000/-. Respondent sought execution of that award by filing E.P. Nos.79 and 141 of 2010 in the Sub Court, Tirur and wanted to proceed against petitioner personally and against his property as prayed for in Exts.P2 and P3. 3. The execution petitions are challenged on the grounds that the executing court had no power to receive the award of the Lok Adalat and execute the same unless it is transmitted to it from the Lok Adalat and that at any rate, though the amount claimed in O.S. No.120 of 2004 came within the pecuniary **O.P(C) No.2896 of 2012** -: 2 :- jurisdiction of the Sub Court, the amount awarded and claimed in Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court and hence execution could be levied only in the Munsiff's Court. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in **M/s.Valarmathi Oil Industries v. M/s. Saradhi Ginning Factory** (AIR 2009 Madras 180) and **Govindan Kutty Menon v. Shaji** (2011 [4] KLT 857). My attention is also drawn to the various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for sort, “the Act”) to contend that except when the award is transmitted from the Lok Adalat, the civil court cannot execute the award though it is a deemed decree. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the award was passed by the Lok Adalat on a reference from the court, the award has to be treated as a decree of that court and hence even without transmission of the award from the Lok Adalat, the decree can be executed in the court concerned. It is further contended that though the amount claimed in Exts.P2 and P3 are Rs.1,40,326/- and Rs.1,43,222/- **O.P(C) No.2896 of 2012** -: 3 :- respectively the deemed decree is executable in the Sub Court. 6. Chapter 6 of the Act deals with “Lok Adalats”. Section 20 deals with cognizance of cases by the Lok Adalats. Clause (ii) of sub-sec.(1) of Sec.20 deals with the power of court to refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Sub-secs.(2) to (7) of Sec.20 deals with the manner in which the Lok Adalat is to dispose of a reference from court. Sec.21 states that every award of the 'Lok Adalat' shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or as the case may be, an order of any other court. 7. Chapter 6A of the Act deals with “pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. Section 22A is the definition clause where, in clause (a) “Permanent Lok Adalat” is defined as a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.22B. Section 22B deals with establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats. Section 22C deals with cognizance of cases by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22E deals with award of Permanent Lok Adalats. Sub Sec.(2) of Sec.22E states that every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under the Act shall be deemed to be a decree of the civil court. Sub Sec.(5) states that the Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and that such civil court shall execute the **O.P(C) No.2896 of 2012** ## -: 4 :- order as if it were a decree made by that court. 8. In **Govindan Kutty Menon v. Shaji** (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the executability of an award passed by the 'Lok Adalat' pursuant to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the criminal court and referred to the Lok Adalat. Parties settled the dispute and the Lok Adalat passed an award. The complainant filed application in the the civil court for execution of that award. That application was dismissed by the executing court and confirmed by the High Court on the ground that the award cannot be deemed to be a decree of the court as the complaint was referred to the Lok Adalat from the criminal court. In the Supreme Court the question considered was whether the reference (obviously under Sec.20(1)(ii) falling in Chapter 6 of the Act) having been made by a criminal court, award passed by the Lok Adalat could be treated as a decree of the court executable in a civil court. The executing court and the High Court took the view that since reference was from the criminal court, question of award of the Lok Adalat being treated as a decree of the criminal court does not arise and hence that decree is not executable in the civil court. The Supreme Court held that Sec.21 of the Act **O.P(C) No.2896 of 2012** ## -: 5 :- makes no distinction between a civil case or criminal case referred to Lok Adalat (under Sec.20(1)(ii) of the Act) and that notwithstanding that the reference is from the criminal court, award passed by the Lok Adalat is to be deemed to be a decree of the civil court capable of being executed. It was held that the award is executable in the civil court. In holding so, the Supreme court referred to the decision in **M/s.Valarmathi Oil Industries v. M/s. Saradhi Ginning Factory** (supra). 9. The question now for decision is not whether the award passed by the Lok Adalat could be deemed to be a decree of the civil court. For, reference was from the Sub Court and hence in the light of Sec.21 of the Act, award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the Sub Court. Hence the decisions relied on by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of the case. 10. No doubt, Sec.22E(5) of the Act states that the Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a civil court having local jurisdiction and such civil court shall execute the order as it if were a decree made by that court. If the said provision is made applicable to the award in this case, learned counsel for petitioner is justified in his contention that the **O.P(C) No.2896 of 2012** -: 6 :- execution petitions could not have been filed in the Sub Court. Instead, the award should have been transmitted to the Sub Court from the Lok Adalat. 11. But, Sec.22E comes in Chapter 6A which deals with “pre-litigation conciliation and settlement” by the Permanent Lok Adalat which is defined in Sec.22A (a) of the Act as a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.22B while Chapter 6 deals with Lok Adalat. The necessity for transmission of awards arises only when a Permanent Lok Adalat passes an award with respect to a matter coming under Chapter 6A and when it takes cognizance under Sec.22C and not when an award is passed by a Lok Adalat on a matter taken cognizance under Sec.20. Hence for execution of an award passed by the Lok Adalat on a matter taken cognizance by it under Sec.20 of the Act, transmission of the award from the Lok Adalat to the civil court is not required. In such cases the award which is a deemed decree can be filed in the court concerned with a request to execute it. The execution petitions filed in the Sub Court, Tirur are therefore maintainable. 12. That the Sub Court, Tirur has otherwise jurisdiction to deal with the matter is not in dispute. Though the amount ## **O.P(C) No.2896 of 2012** -: 7 :- claimed as per Exts.P2 and P3 though is less than Rs.2,00,000/-, that does not oust jurisdiction of the Sub Court which has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence the objection that the award ought to have been executed in the Munsiff's Court is also unsustainable. I do not find any infirmity in the respondent filing execution petitions in the Sub Court, Tirur and seeking recovery of the amount. 13. If petitioner is desirous of getting time for payment or installment facility for payment of the amount, it is open to the petitioner to request the executing court for such facility and if any such request is made, the executing court shall decide the same and pass appropriate orders. The Original Petition is dismissed with the above direction. ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.** vsv