produced and that was allowed to be corrected by the court below which is being challenged by the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that, though a contention was raised by the petitioner in the petition that, the award itself is not executable as the presiding officer himself had presided over the Adalat, but such a contention was not advanced at the time when the hearing was taken today. Further such a contention was also not taken regarding the executeability of the award before the court below also. Further the award was passed in the year 2010. He is raising the contention only in the year 2016 after six years of the award. Since he was not satisfied with the award of the Adalat, he filed a writ petition before this court and the writ petition was closed directing him to raise the same before the court below. It may be mentioned here that, he had no dispute regarding the terms of the award and he had also no case that he is not interested in complying with Ext.P1 award as well. So under such circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the award passed in the Adalat which requires interference at the hands of this court for any vitiating circumstances.
