J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021 The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to declare that Ext.P1 Memorandum of Settlement can be executed as a decree through a court of law.

2. Advocate Kishore R., who appeared for the 2nd respondent, submitted that the name of the 3rd respondent shown in the writ petition as wife of the 2nd respondent is incorrect. The learned counsel further submitted that he is authorised to appear on behalf of the wife of the 2nd respondent also.

3. There are certain civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. Perhaps, as a consequence of the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, a criminal case happened to be filed against the 1st petitioner as CC No.1348/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Punalur. The petitioners approached this Court filing Crl.M.C. No.1380/2019 against the proceedings dated 23.11.2018 in CC No.1348/2018 of the JFCM-I, Punalur. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, referred the case for mediation. Accordingly, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, as evidenced by Ext.P1.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that in pursuance of Ext.P1 settlement and as agreed therein, the petitioners have discharged their part of the obligations and have imparted an amount of ₹1,06,00,000/- to the KSFE, Kollam. However, respondents 2 and 3 are not discharging their part of the obligations arising under Ext.P1.

5. Left with no remedy to execute Ext.P1, the petitioners preferred Crl.M.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 and approached the Bench which delivered the order in Crl.M.C. No.1380/2019 seeking for appropriate directions to respondents 2 and 3 to comply with the directions in the settlement agreement. The learned Single Judge, by Ext.P5 order, held that the only option available to the petitioners to execute the mediated settlement is to exercise jurisdiction of the civil court. With the said observations, Crl.M.A. Nos.1 and

2 of 2020 were dismissed.

6. The petitioners are now before this Court to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court to execute the settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once the Court refers a dispute for mediation for settlement and a settlement is arrived at between the parties in such proceedings, the Court has a duty to see that the mediated settlement is executed and enforced. Once the Court has recorded the mediation settlement in its order/judgment, it is the bounden duty of the Court to see that the terms of the settlement are adhered to by the parties to the mediated settlement.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. In the petitioners' case, the failure of this Court to pass a decree in terms of the mediated settlement cannot be a reason to deny benefit of the settlement to the writ petitioners, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly argued that technicalities in these matters should not come in the way of execution of mediated settlement. Parties who have appeared before this Court and who have agreed for a mediated settlement, shall not be permitted to go back from the terms of the settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has ample power to see that a mediated settlement arrived at the instance of this Court is enforced treating the same as a decree of a Court. In the circumstances, this Court shall pass appropriate orders enforcing the terms of Ext.P1 mediated settlement, contended the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. The learned counsel appearing