IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1452 of 2009(W) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2008 IN EA 13/08,EP 24/06 IN OPMV.448/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKO VARGHESE, THUNDIYIL VEEDU, VENKARINJI P.O. KOLLAMADA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.NAVA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUNNY M.P., S/O.PATHROSE, MUTHUKATTINPURATHU HOUSE, MADUKKA KARA, MADUKKA P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PATHANAMTHITTA. SMT.SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1452 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the MACT, Pala, rejecting Ext.P1 application claiming the benefit of Section 60(C) of the CPC. 2. This is the case, where award was passed by the MACT. The petitioner filed appeal against that award before this Court. That appeal was dismissed. Amount due was not paid and hence an execution petition was filed and finally, revenue recovery was ordered. When proceedings were initiated, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 application claiming the benefit of Section 60(C) of CPC, and that was rejected by Ext.P2 order stating that remedy lies before the revenue recovery authorities. That order is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Vasakumar Pillai v. M.A.C.T (2008(4) KLT 899). 3. Having considered the submissions made, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. In WP(C) No.1452/2009 -2- the judgment referred to above, this Court has upheld the power of the MACT in ordering attachment before judgment, tracing the power to Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, framed under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. On the other hand, in this case, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated, and the amount due is sought to be recovered. Therefore, the exemption under Section 60(C) of the CPC cannot be claimed. 4. Therefore, in my view, the MACT is perfectly justified in rejecting Ext.P1 application. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg