A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

In this original petition, a serious question arises as to the procedure to be followed by the courts in regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties in a court-annexed mediation.

2. In a suit for recovery of possession, the parties were referred to mediation. The parties have settled their dispute as seen from Ext.R3(c). The settlement reads as follows:

VERNACULLAR MATTER

3. Thereafter, it appears that the court below awaited the report of the surveyor to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. As the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the report of the surveyor, they filed I.A. No. 559/2015 to revoke the mediation settlement and to permit him to proceed with the case. Aggrieved by the course of procedure adopted by the court below, the defendants approached this court in O.P. No. 900 of 2015. This court by judgment in O.P. No. 900 of 2015 directed the court below to refer the parties once again to mediation. Ext.P1 is the judgment in O.P. No. 900 of 2015 dated 26.6.2015. The directions issued therein are as follows:

"In the result, this Original Petition (Civil) is allowed and the court below is directed to refer the matter once again for mediation. In the mediation, the parties can come to terms with regard to the appointment of another Surveyor in the place of the earlier Surveyor and once again measurement can be carried out afresh."

4. The parties were again referred to mediation and they have arrived at the following settlement:

"1. Both parties hereby mutually agreed to get the property measured by the Taluk Surveyor, Ernakulam. The said surveyor shall measure the property after giving notice to all the concerned parties to the suit and also to the neighbouring parties on all the four boundaries. The expenses shall be borne by the plaintiffs. The measurement shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation agreement dated 13-12-2013 as early as possible within three months. The surveyor shall measure the property.

2. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the suits petitions, appeals be decreed/dismissed/disposed of in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

3. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the plaintiffs/ Appellants prays for refund of the full Institution Fee.

4. Parties will appear on ..... before the Hon'ble Court for passing Orders/Decree in terms of the above said agreement."

5. After arriving at the above settlement, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.911 of 2016 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for measurement. This was dismissed by the court below holding that the mediation agreement as above does not contemplate the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. However, the court below referred the parties to mediation to enable them to measure the properties with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor as agreed to in the mediation agreement earlier. Again the matter was referred back to the court stating that the matter was not settled in mediation. Then, again the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the help of a Taluk Surveyor after ignoring the mediation agreement. This has been dismissed by Ext.P6 order, stating that, unless and until the mediation agreement is not wiped off by the court, the petitioners cannot maintain such an application.

6. The question that looms large in this case is, what is the effect of an agreement entered into between the parties in a mediation? Is that to be considered only as a piece of agreement between the parties for prosecuting the original suit or has it become final as to the dispute referred to the mediation.

7. The "court-annexed mediation" has become part of the administration of justice by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code with effect from 1.7.2002. The power is conferred upon the court in terms of Section 89 to refer the dispute for settlement on any of the prescribed modes therein. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 122 of CP