Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. If there ever be a Book on Lawyers' Truths, the first aphoristic percept that would occupy it is that a bad settlement is better than a good law suit. This truism is well recognised because litigation is expensive, time consuming and unpredictable. However, many a time, this aphorism has been pushed well beyond its intent leading to a settle-at-all-costs mentality without being cognizant of the forensic worth or value of such settlement.

2. The bane of thoughtless and ill drafted settlements is that the cure became worse than the malady, ironically then causing even more litigation. When settlements couched on illogical, unenforceable, impractical and sometimes even dissolute terms are brought to the notice of Courts, it become difficult to be blind to it since the final outcome of any judicial process in justice and everything else is only a cornolony effort to approximate the result of a well functioning judicial system.

3. The situation presented in this case is graphically illustrative of what I have said above.

4. The petitioner assails Ext.P7, which is an award passed in a Lok Adalath conducted by the Kollam Taluk Legal Services Committee. This challenge hypostized on Article 226 of the Constitution of India against such an Award would, at first blush appear to be slightly far fetched and perhaps even incompetent on account of the imperative provision of the Kerala Lok Adalath Act, which virtually invest settlement of awards in total finality. However, on an analysis of the facts involved, I am persuaded to think otherwise.

5. The wood cut of the facts, as is constitutive for my consideration, is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale with the 2nd respondent on 20.12.2010. The agreement involved 55 cents of land and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1.9 Crores. As per the terms of the agreement, the 2nd respondent was to execute the Sale Deed within a period of two months and on such covenant, the petitioner paid the entire consideration of Rs.1.9 Crores to the 2nd respondent in 2012. These facts are virtually conceded to by the 2nd respondent. However, it appears that while matters stood thus, the 2nd respondent, which is a Private Limited Company, was proceeded against by various of its other creditors, leading to Ext.P3 order being issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam, injuncting the 2nd respondent from disposing of the Company properties or the personal properties of the Directors. This consequently constrrained the petitioner to file O.S. No.381/2013 on the files of the Sub Court, Kollam seeking recovery of Rs.1.9 Crores paid by him under the agreement of sale. While the suit was pending, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath for an attempt of settlement.

6. In the Lok Adalath, the parties agreed to certain terms, which were reduced to writing and recorded by the Adalath as a settlement, as is discernible from Ext.P7. The two terms in Ext.P7, which is recorded in Malayalam, is as under:

(i) The parties agree that the suit will be settled on the defendant paying the plaintiff an amount of Rs.1.9 Crores in full and final settlement.

(ii) The defendant will pay the amount of Rs.1.9 Crores to the plaintiff within a period of 9 months after Crl.M.C. No.295/2013 filed by the plaintiff is allowed by the High Court.

7. It transpires that based on this award, but on a misinterpretation of its terms, the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, withdrew Crl.M.C. No.295/2013 before this Court.

8. The reasons that led to the petitioner filing Crl.M.C. No.295/2013 is also relevant here. This Crl.M.C. was filed by the petitioner to vary the terms of Ext.P3, under which the Company was injuncted from selling its properties, as has been mentioned by me earlier. So, obviously the parties thought that once the injunction is vacated by an order of this Court, the amount retained by the Company could be returned to the petitioner.

9. However, when Crl.M.C