JUDGMENT

N S Sanjay Gowda, J. - The undisputed facts in this writ petition are as follows:

The first petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement, whereby, the respondent had undertaken to construct an apartment complex called 'LOTUS PALACE'. It appears that disputes arose between the first petitioner and the respondent and the first petitioner terminated the contract. It appears that the first petitioner had issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the respondent and the said cheque has been dishonoured resulting in initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act"), before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.7281/2015.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners and the respondent settled their differences and on 24.08.2015, filed a memo before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate regarding the settlement and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the Memo referred the matter to the Lok-Adalath.

3. The Lok-Adalath on 03.09.2015, took up the joint memo for consideration and after hearing the parties, proceeded to accept the joint memo and disposed of the complaint in terms of the joint memo. The first petitioner, by the same order, was also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Thus, the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to an end with the acceptance of the joint memo / compromise.

4. It may be pertinent to state here that the joint memo was in fact an application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which contemplated compounding of the offences and acquitting the accused.

5. In the said application / compromise, it was agreed that the respondent would be given nine cheques totally amounting to Rs.1,50,57,644/-. The nine cheques were all post dated cheques. It appears that the post dated cheques issued by the petitioners were dishonoured and since the compromise / application filed before the Magistrate enabled the respondent to execute the compromise, an Execution petition in Ex Case No 871/2016 was filed on 31.03.2016.

6. During the pendency of this execution petition, the respondent appears to have filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate requesting for drawing up of an award. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 29.08.2016, proceeded to direct the drawing up of an award as per the terms of the compromise. This order was passed at the instance of the respondent and the petitioners were not heard in the matter.

7. As stated above, the execution had been filed seeking to execute the compromise that had been filed before the Magistrate in CC No.871/2016. In the said execution petition, the petitioners filed two applications. I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 47 r/w Section 151 of CPC., for dismissal of the execution petition as not maintainable and I.A.No.2 was filed under Section 151 of CPC., for the same relief i.e., for dismissal of the execution petition as not maintainable.

8. The Executing Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order has dismissed the said applications - I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners who were the Judgment Debtors in the said Execution case are thus before this Court challenging the dismissal of their applications.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.B.K.Sampath Kumar, contended that the very initiation of the execution proceedings on 31.03.2016 was non est, since the award had been drawn up only on 07.09.2016. He contended that since the matter had been referred to the Lok-Adalath by the Court, the award would not become enforceable until it was directed to be drawn up by the Court. It was his submission that it was the Court which referred the matter to the Lok-Adalath and the Court would therefore not loose control over the proceedings even if a Joint Memo was recorded and accepted before the Lok-Adalath. He su