IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7830 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.RAMLA,W/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 34 YEARS,RESIDING AT BEKAL,PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, BEKAL POST,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. T.SEENATH,W/O.ABBAS,AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEPURAM,POOCHAKKAT,KEEKAN VILLAGE, KEEKAN POST,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, BEKAL POST,HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 315. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,HOSDURG,KANHANGAD.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671 315. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KASARAGOD, VIDYANAGAR.P.O,KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671 123. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 7830 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are challenging the Revenue Recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 notices. They were sureties to the accused in a sessions case, SC NO.685/2005 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg. Proceedings under section 446 of the Cr.PC was initiated against the petitioners when the accused defaulted appearance in the above said case. Ext.P1 order was issued in MC.No.1/2007 by the said court, forfeiting security bonds furnished by the petitioners, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each. The revenue recovery steps were initiated for realising the said amount. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, a statutory appeal has now been filed against Ext.P1 order, before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, as Crl.Appeal NO.106/11. It is further stated that since the delay condonation petition filed along with the appeal (CMP.No.991/11) has not been disposed of, the petitioners are not in a position to WP(C) .7830/2011 2 seek interim relief against execution of Ext.P1 . Under such circumstance the petitioners seek for a direction to keep in abeyance the recovery steps, till the disposal of the appeal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstance as stated above, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioners to seek appropriate interim relief in the statutory appeal which is pending before the appellate court. However, in order to facilitate the petitioners to seek such relief, the recovery steps can be directed to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 notices, for a period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioners to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .7830/2011 3