IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28472 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P T DAVIS, AGED 66, S/O.PULLOKARAN THOMAS, IRINJALAKUDA, VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, IRINJALAKUDA. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA SC FOR R1 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28472/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.2340 OF 2004 DATED 30/9/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28472 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a defaulter to the 1st respondent. That issue was raised before the Civil Court by filing OS No.2340/2004. The suit was dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment and the matter is now pending before this Court by way of a second appeal, which has been filed with a representation delay, which is yet to be condoned. In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings are being continued and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. Although several contentions have been raised in the pleadings, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel seeks a direction to the respondents to withhold the recovery proceedings for a period of fifteen days in order to enable him to seek orders in the second appeal, which he has filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 4. 4. Although the standing counsel opposed the prayer of the petitioner having regard to the liability that is crystallized as per Ext.P1, still fact remains that the matter is pending before this WPC No. 28472/11 :2 : Court and the petitioner is endeavouring to get interlocutory orders in the matter. Taking note of these facts and also having regard to the financial constraints that are explained before me, I direct the respondents 2 and 3 to defer further proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the amount due under Ext.P1 for a period of fifteen days from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp