Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 757 (KER)

Prasanth P. Kumar v. State of Kerala

2026-03-26

Harisankar V Menon

body2026
JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. 1. The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale with the 4 th respondent herein. The 4 th respondent paid an advance amount in excess of Rs.90 lakhs. However, for one reason or another, the sale did not take place. The 4 th respondent sought the return of the advance amount. The petitioners were also ready to refund the advance amount, in terms of the agreement for sale. But since the petitioners did not refund the advance amount, the 4 th respondent herein instituted an application/complaint at Ext.P2, before the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Authority. The afore application is presented on 18.10.2022. The petitioners were directed to appear – they state, by telephone – and on the basis of the afore direction, the petitioners also admit that they appeared before the 3 rd respondent on the very next day, on 19.10.2022, along with a lawyer. By Ext.P3 award, the 3 rd respondent Committee recorded the undertaking given by the petitioners that they were ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.98,35,000/- on or before 05.04.2023. Post-dated cheques issued by the petitioners were also handed over to the 4 th respondent herein. However, the 4 th respondent sought to execute Ext.P3 by filing Ext.P4 execution petition. The cheques issued by the petitioners were also not honoured. It is also to be noticed that the execution petition was presented on 10.04.2023. The petitioners also entered appearance and sought to object the execution petition. It is even after all the above, that on 25.11.2023, they instituted the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge the award at Ext.P3. 2. Heard Sri. T.M. Raman Kartha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and Smt. Shameena Salahudheen, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the entire proceedings leading to Ext.P3 could not be sustained for more than one reason. According to him, the award at Ext.P3 is on account of a fraud played on the petitioners. Secondly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3 rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction to issue an award in the nature of Ext.P3 with reference to the mandate under Section 19 (5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Secondly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 3 rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction to issue an award in the nature of Ext.P3 with reference to the mandate under Section 19 (5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. Per Contra, Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, would point out that even going by the averments in the writ petition, the fraud alleged against the entire proceedings have not been proven. He would also seek to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Srinivasappa & Ors. v. M. Mallamma & Ors., AIR 2022 SC 2381 , to contend that unless and until the alleged fraud is proven conclusively, an award in the nature of Ext.P3 could not be interfered with, by this Court. Smt. Shameena, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, would also join the issue, by pointing out that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to Section 19 (5)(ii) of the Act is not arising for consideration, in view of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in W.P.(C) No.6190 of 2019, produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent as Ext.R2(a). 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 6. As regards the allegation of fraud, this Court notices that the averments to that effect are contained only in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The averments in the said paragraph are only to the effect that the petitioners were directed over phone to appear before Adalat on the “very next day” and, when they appeared as directed, they were forced into the compromise. But, in my opinion, the afore would not be sufficient to prove any fraud against the appellant. This is especially so, when the petitioners themselves admit that there was no coercion for their appearance and since, as already noticed, they were accompanied by a lawyer. Hence, the allegation as regards fraud, is only to be turned down. 7. As regards the jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. This is especially so, when the petitioners themselves admit that there was no coercion for their appearance and since, as already noticed, they were accompanied by a lawyer. Hence, the allegation as regards fraud, is only to be turned down. 7. As regards the jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Kartha, would point out that the 3 rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction, since the petitioners could not have instituted a suit with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction, since the Taluk of Adoor did not have a Sub Court. Though the afore contention appears to be attractive, on a deeper analysis of the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the Act, I am of the opinion that insofar as (5) has not spoken about any “pecuniary jurisdiction” and has only spoken about “territorial jurisdiction” the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered the very same issue. There, the petitioner contented that the litigation was pending before a particular district, on account of which, if at all a complaint could be lodged and considered, that can be only by the District Legal Services Authority. Considering this issue, the High Court, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, has categorically found that the statute does not specify any “pecuniary jurisdiction”. On that basis, it was found that the Taluk Legal Services Authority could also entertain a complaint. 8. This Court also notices the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Thomas @ Thomas v. Florance, 2006 (3) KLT 717 , wherein more or less the same principles have been laid down. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same would stand dismissed.