JUDGMENT : Ext.P3 award dated 14.01.2011 in O.S.No.1766 of 2010 of Sub-Court, Thrissur passed by the Lok Adalat his under challenge in this original petition. 2. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondent. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 4. The petitioners are the defendants in the above said suit. The petitioners would contend that they were not aware of Ext.P3 award passed by the Lok Adalat and that they were not signatories to the said award and hence, the said award cannot be sustained. 5. Ext.P3 award would show that the matter was settled as per the compromise petition filed by the parties, which was attached to the award. The compromise petition attached to the said award is a petition filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Lok Adalat treated the said petition as a compromise petition and passed the award. 6. At the outset, it has to be noted that the Lok Adalat has no power to act upon a compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Civil Court alone has the power to deal with such compromise petition. The civil court will record the composition and pass compromise decree in accordance with law, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit. 7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether it is necessary that all the parties must sign the Award or not. 8. For answering the said question, it is necessary to read Clause (2), Clause (5) and Clause (6) of Regulation No.17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 (for short 'the Act'), which can be extracted hereunder:- “17. Award.-(1) ….. …... …... …... ….... (2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award (see a specimen at Appendix-1). Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be categorical and lucid and shall be written in regional language used in the local Courts or in English. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of Court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation 20) and date of settlement. It shall also contain particulars of the case viz., case number, name of Court and names of parties, date of receipt, register number assigned to the case in the permanent Register (maintained as provided under Regulation 20) and date of settlement. Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award-before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature. (3) ….. …... …... …... ….... (4)….. …... …... …... ….... (5) Members of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded. The members of the Lok Adalat shall also satisfy themselves about the following before affixing their signatures. (a) that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided; and (b) that the parties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. (6) Members of the Lok Adalat should affix their signatures only in settlement reached before them and should avoid affixing-signatures to settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat with the assistance of some third parties, to ensure that the Lok Adalats are not used by unscrupulous parties to commit fraud, forgery, etc.. (7) …. …... ….... …... ….. (8) …. …... ….. ….... …....” 9. Clause (2) of Regulation No.17 of the Act would make it clear that the members of the Lok Adalat can sign the award only after the parties putting their signature or affixing their thumb impression on the award. When the parties sign and the members sign, it becomes an award. It further appears from Clause (2) that if the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the agreement/ Award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature. 10. It is clear from Clause (5) that the members of the Lok Adalat must ensure that the parties sign the agreement only after fully understanding the terms of the settlement. The members of the Lok Adalat must also ensure that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided and that theparties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. 11. The members of the Lok Adalat must also ensure that the terms of settlement are not unreasonable or illegal or one-sided and that theparties have entered into the settlement voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. 11. Clause (6) would make it clear that the members of the Lok Adalath will sign only the settlement reached by the parties before the Lok Adalat and not in the settlement reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat. 12. It is clear from the above provisions that the settlement or agreement must be arrived at by the parties before the members of the Adalat. This would show that the parties must be present before the Lok Adalat in person. The parties must also sign the Award after understanding the terms of settlement. The members of the Lok Adalat must ensure that the settlement was arrived at by the parties voluntarily and not on account of any threat, coercion or undue influence. For the said purpose also, the presence of the parties before the Lok Adalat is necessary. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that if an Award is passed in the absence of the parties, the members of the Lok Adalat do not get any opportunity to ascertain from the parties as to whether they have signed the Award/settlement after understanding the terms of the Award/ settlement or not and also as to whether they have entered into the settlement voluntarily or not and hence, the Award passed in theabsence of the parties cannot be said to be legal and correct. 13. In this case, since the petitioners did not sign the Award, it has to be held that the petitioners were not present when the award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 14.01.2011. The operative portion of the award is extracted hereunder:- “The matter settled as per the compromise petition filed by the parties, which is attached herewith.” 14. It is clear from the award that the award was passed on the basis of a compromise petition produced before the Adalat. The said compromise petition was not signed by the parties in the presence of the members of the Lok Adalat. It is clear from the award that the award was passed on the basis of a compromise petition produced before the Adalat. The said compromise petition was not signed by the parties in the presence of the members of the Lok Adalat. It is incumbent on the part of the members of the Lok Adalat to ensure that the members of the Adalat will affix their signature only inthe settlement or agreement reached by the parties in their presence. That means, the members of the Adalat must ensure that they will not sign any agreement reached outside the Adalat by the parties. The members would also ensure that the parties understand the terms of the agreement fully before affixing their signature on the award. 15. In this case, the petitioners did not signExt.P3 Award. The settlement was also reached by the parties outside the Lok Adalat. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.P3 Award was passed in accordance with law and hence, Ext.P3 Award cannot be said to be legal and correct and consequently, I set aside the same. In the result, this Original Petition stands allowed and Ext.P3 Award passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.1766 of 2010 of Sub Court, Thrissur stands quashed and the Sub Court concerned is directed to proceed with O.S. No.1766 of 2010, in accordance with law. The petitioners shall appear before the court below on 04.08.2020 without further notice.