THOMAS ANTHONY Vs. FLORANCE GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award of the Lok Adalat is to be treated as a decree of the civil court. Which is the civil court to execute decree is the question to be considered in this case. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.1469/98 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Respondent is the plaintiff. The suit pertains to partition. Reference was made under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Thrissur settled the matter and passed an award dated 5.11.1999. The petitioner undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 260000/-within a period of six months from the date of the award with 12% interest. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount in time, the respondent took up the matter in execution before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. In the process, order dated 20.3.2004 in E.P.1394/01 in O.S. 1469/98 was passed for proclamation and sale of the attached property.

(2.) The main contention taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the decree amount being Rs. 260000/- with interest, the Munsiff Court, Thrissur lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. Yet another contention is that it is not necessary to proceed with the whole extent of property since the decree can be satisfied by proceeding against part of the property.

(3.) Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction which reads as follows: