ORDER :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

1. C.R.P.(MD). No. 847 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner / defendant challenging the order passed in E.P. No. 44 of 2018 in O.S. No. 4 of 2017, dated 05.03.2019, whereby and whereunder the Court below has directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent/defendant, as per the Lok-Adalat award dated 25.07.2018, made in O.S. No. 4 of 2017.

2. C.R.P.(MD). No. 978 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the Lok-Adalat award dated 25.07.2018 made in O.S. No. 4 of 2017 by the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Virudhunagar.

3. As the issue involved in both the petitions are interrelated to each other and arising out of one and the same suit, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

4. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 4 of 2017, along with his mother, the 2nd plaintiff, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the petitioner/defendant and for a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for his unlawful occupation of the suit property by way of damages from the date of the suit till the date of eviction. According to the respondent / first plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant was in permissive occupation of the suit property and he refused to vacate the suit property from 14.09.2013. According to the petitioner/defendant, he is entitled to half share in the suit property as he had contributed Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of the suit property to the 2nd plaintiff. In the Lok-Adalat held on 25.07.2018, both the parties have entered into a compromise and recording the joint compromise memo dated 25.07.2018, submitted by the parties with their signatures, an award was passed in the Lok-Adalat on the same day. Since the petitioner/defendant failed to vacate the suit property as per the award dated 25.07.2018, the respondent/first plaintiff filed E.P. No. 44 of 2019. The Court below, by order dated 05.03.2019, directed the petitioner/defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over vacant possession to the respondent/first plaintiff. Challenging the said order passed by the Court below, the petitioner/defendant has filed C.R.P. (MD). No. 847 of 2019. Subsequently, challenging the Lok-Adalat award dated 25.07.2018, the petitioner/defendant has filed another Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD). No. 978 of 2019.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submitted that any agreement or compromise in a suit can be made only within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, whereas, in this case, the agreement and terms of compromise made is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar and the Taluk Legal Services Authority has no pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court which referred the dispute for settlement. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Lok-Adalat award cannot be executed by the trial Court and the trial Court ought to have been followed Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. before passing any orders, but, the Court below has failed to consider the same. Thus, he prayed to set aside the Lok-Adalat award dated 25.07.2018 and to set aside the consequential order dated 05.03.2019 passed in E.P. No. 44 of 2018 in O.S. No. 4 of 2017.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/first plaintiff submitted that the Taluk Legal Services Authority was headed by the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar and therefore, the suit, which was pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, was rightly referred to the Taluk Legal Services Authority and award was passed. He would further submit that the value of the suit mentioned in the plaint was Rs. 5 lakhs and therefore, the Taluk Legal Services Authority has jurisdiction to pass the award, though the value of the settlement is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction. He would further submit that in order to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner/defendant has filed this revision pe