As per case facts, a property dispute between two brothers, P.T. Thomas (appellant) and Thomas Job (respondent), arose after a partition where the respondent did not vacate the part allotted ... to the appellant. A suit led to a decree for the appellant, but during appeal, the matter was settled in a Lok Adalat. The award allowed the appellant to purchase the property by paying a specific sum to the respondent within two years. When the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, despite the appellant's efforts to notify and pay, the appellant filed an execution petition. The Subordinate Judge allowed this, but the High Court dismissed the execution petition, prompting the appellant's appeal. The question arose whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, correctly interpreted the Lok Adalat award and the appellant's readiness, and whether a Lok Adalat award holds the status of a court decree, allowing for time extensions. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, misinterpreted the Lok Adalat award, and failed to appreciate the appellant's readiness. It affirmed that a Lok Adalat award is akin to a civil court decree, binding and allowing for time extensions, and set aside the High Court's order, directing the respondent to execute the sale deed.