Writ petitioner challenged execution proceedings under Article 227 regarding an Adalath award settlement. Court dismissed petition noting plaintiff cannot be compelled to accept payment and mediator's interference is beyond writ court jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2939 of 2016
EP.NO.197/2016 IN OS.124/13 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
P.SIVAKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.S PARAMESWARAN, DEEPA NIVAS, KADAYANKODA, MARUTHA ROAD, POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
K.T.SAROJA, D/O. LATE M.V.THAMI, KANNALATH HOUSE, TRITHALA P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-693 534.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
OP(C).No. 2939 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD 27/6/2012 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
msv/
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
....................................... O.P.(C).No.2939 of 2016
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016.
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the execution proceedings in EP.No.197/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
O.P.(C).No.2939 of 2016 2
amount was not paid as undertaken, the plaintiff filed EP.No.197/2016 for realization of the amount. Though the petitioner handed over Ext.P6 demand draft for the amount of Rs.2,15,000/-, the plaintiff is not willing to receive the same. So the present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
“to stay further proceedings in EP.No.197/2016 in OS.No.124/2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Palakkad”.
O.P.(C).No.2939 of 2016 3
created for the amount over the plaint schedule property. Admittedly the award was dated 12th February, 2016 and the amount was neither tendered nor paid before the period of six months provided in Ext.P4. So under such circumstances, filing of execution petition by the plaintiff for realization of the amount as per Ext.P4 award cannot be said to be illegal and it is not liable to be quashed also as claimed by the petitioner. Further it is for the plaintiff to agree or not to agree to receive the amount and settle the claim covered by Ext.P6 demand draft. The court cannot compel the parties to settle also. So under such circumstances, this court feels that there is no merit in the writ petition and the petitioner can approach the execution court for referring the matter for mediation and if the parties settle the matter for a lessor amount, then that can be considered and the question of recording satisfaction can be considered by that court on that basis.
With the above observations, this petition is dismissed in limine. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the execution proceedings under Article 227 be stayed in the circumstances.
Whether the activation of the execution petition against the settlement awarded in the Adalath proceedings can be quashed.
P.SIVAKUMAR
K.T.SAROJA
K RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
