The award of the Lok Adalat should be treated as a decree of the Civil Court for execution purposes.

This revision petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 186 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Erode for specific performance directing the defendants/respondents herein to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration to be deposited into the Court, in default, the Court may execute the sale deed; put the plaintiff into possession of the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from alienating or encumbering the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

3. It is seen from the recoreds that the suit was referred to the Lok Adalat for exploring the possibility of settlement of the dispute. Before the Lok Adalat, the parties themselves have settled the matter and the terms of settlement were reduced into writing and based on the same, an award was also passed by the Lok Adalat on 22.01.2010. Since the defendants/respondents herein have not complied with the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the revision petitioner, for the purpose of executing the award passed by the Lok Adalat, has filed E.P. No. 186 of 2009 before the Court below, which was returned by the executing Court on the ground that the description of the property was not given in the award passed by the Lok Adalat and directed the petitioner to get the award amended. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the Lok Adalat authorities and he was informed that there is no provision for amendment of an award passed by the Lok Adalat. It was also informed that normally, the award passed by the Lok Adalat will not contain the description of the property and the description of the property already stated in the petition or plaint as the case may is being followed as a matter of convention/routine.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below ought not to have returned the Execution Petition. In the normal circumstances, the court below ought to have taken into consideration the description of the property given in the plaint alone or the court below itself could have clarified or verified with the Lok Adalat authorities as to whether the description of the property mentioned in the plaint tallies with the award passed by the Lok Adalat and therefore the refusal on the part of the Executing Court to entertain the Execution Petition is illegal and prayed for allowing of this civil revision petition.

5. In this connection, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which reads as follows:-

"22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final.--(1) Every award of the permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.

.(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.

.(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat

.(4) Every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding.

.(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a Civil Court having local jurisdiction and such civil Court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that Court.

6. As per sub-section (2) of Section 22E, every award of permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of civil court. Sub-section 5 of Section 22E of the Act provides that the Permanent Lok Adalat may transmit any award made by it to a Civil Court having local jurisdiction and such civil Court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by that Court.

7. Therefore