JUDGMENT : GOPINATH P., J 1. These writ petitions raise a common question of law and can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions had availed credit facilities from the Malanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’). On default being committed, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalath constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1987 Act'). The dispute was settled in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the 1987 Act, and awards were drawn up based on the said settlement. Since the petitioners failed to pay the amounts determined as payable by them in terms of the awards passed under the 1987 Act, the Bank sought to have the awards executed by filing execution petitions 1 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana. The petitioners raised a contention that the awards were not accompanied by a certificate as contemplated by the provisions of Section 76 (a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Act') and thus could not be executed through the civil court. The said objection was overruled by the Subordinate 1E.P 21 of 2023 in P.L.P 4522 of 2022; E.P 22 of 2023 in P.L.P 4652 of 2022; E.P 35 of 2023 in P.L.P 4556 of 2022; E.P 41 of 2023 in P.L.P 4524 of 2022 and E.P 36 of 2023 in P.L.P 4530 of 2022. 9595/2025, 10946/2025, 11171/2025 - - Judge's Court, Kattappana, prompting the petitioners to approach this court by filing the above writ petitions. 3. The petitioners contended on the strength of an unreported judgment of this court in W.P (C) No.11304/2008 that when the provisions of Section 100 of the 1969 Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of any matter where dispute is with a Co-operative Bank; notwithstanding the provisions of Section 21 of the 1987 Act, execution can be levied through the civil court only if such application is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as contemplated by the provisions of Section 76 (a) of the 1969 Act. 4. 4. On 20-01-2026 after hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and after perusing the judgment of this court in W.P (C) No.11304/2008 this court took the view that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the 1987 Act, a certificate as contemplated by the provisions of Section 76 (a) of the 1969 Act was not necessary to execute an award obtained under the provisions of the 1987 Act, as Section 21 of the 1987 Act deems every award of the Lok Adalath to be a decree of the civil court. In other words, this court took the view that an award of the Lok Adalath in terms of the provisions contained in the 1987 Act 9595/2025, 10946/2025, 11171/2025 - - could be executed as a decree of the civil court without any other formality, even if the dispute was with a Co-operative Society to which the provisions of Sections 76(a) and 100 of the 1969 Act apply. Since the view taken by this court was diametrically opposite to the view taken by this court in the unreported judgment in W.P (C) No.11304/2008, this court referred the matter for the consideration of the Division Bench. A Division Bench of this Court (Hon’ble the Chief Justice & Hon’ble Justice Syam Kumar V.M) answered the reference through the judgment dated 04-03-2026 in I.C.R (W.P (C)) No.1/2026. The Division Bench inter alia held as follows; “4. We are unable to accept the said submission having regard to the fact that ‘the LSA Act’ was enacted inter alia for the purpose of organising Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. Section 19 contemplates the organisation of Lok Adalats. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of ‘the LSA Act’ provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending before; or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised, provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. It appears that the matters were referred to the Lok Adalat in which the parties have agreed to settle their dispute thus 9595/2025, 10946/2025, 11171/2025 - - culminating in an award. For the proper understanding of the issue raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to Section 21 of ‘the LSA Act’ which reads as follows: “21. Award of Lok Adalat.— (1) 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 and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section(1) of section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 . (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.” Section 21 of ‘the LSA Act’ equates an award of the Lok Adalat to a decree of a civil court and imputes an element of finality to an award and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties. Section 22(1) of the Act stipulates that the Lok Adalat shall have the same powers as civil courts under the ‘ CPC ’ for determination of the lis under ‘the LSA Act’. In view of the clear mandate of the said provision, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is equivalent to a decree of a civil court and it can be executed without any further certification by any authority under ‘the 1969 Act’ that required such certificates before enforcement if proceedings were allowed to be continued under the said Act and had culminated in an award. Once the dispute is referred to Lok Adalat and an award is passed, it has to follow the mandate of Section 21 of 9595/2025, 10946/2025, 11171/2025 - - ‘the LSA Act’ which means that the award would be treated as a deemed decree and would be enforceable by a civil court. 5. Once the dispute is referred to Lok Adalat and an award is passed, it has to follow the mandate of Section 21 of 9595/2025, 10946/2025, 11171/2025 - - ‘the LSA Act’ which means that the award would be treated as a deemed decree and would be enforceable by a civil court. 5. The apprehension expressed by the learned Single Judge that in the absence of the certification which required a mention whether any other mode of execution has been levied or any amount has been realised in the meantime is misplaced as the executing court can only execute the amount awarded and in such proceedings the judgment debtor can always contend that other mode of execution has been initiated or that the entire awarded amount or part thereof has already been paid. 6. On such consideration, the reference is answered, accepting the view expressed by Hon’ble Justice Gopinath P. in paragraph 5 of the order. The reference is thus disposed of. 7. The writ petitions may be placed before the Hon’ble Justice according to roster.” It is accordingly these matters have now been placed before this court for disposal. 5. In the light of the finding of the Division Bench in I.C.R (W.P (C)) No.1/2026, it is held and declared that even when the dispute is with a Co- operative Society, where such dispute has been settled in terms of the provisions contained in the 1987 Act, the award obtained under the 1987 Act can be executed through the civil court without the support of a certificate as 9595/2025, 10946/2025, 11171/2025 - - contemplated by the provisions of Section 76 (a) of the 1969 Act notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section 100 of the 1969 Act. The contrary view taken in the unreported judgment in W.P (C) No.11304/2008 is no longer good law, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in I.C.R (W.P (C)) No.1/2026. Accordingly, these writ petitions will stand dismissed confirming the impugned orders of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana. No costs. Registry shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kattapana.