IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2011/1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7667 of 2011 (G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. DHAMAYANDY P.V., D/O.VELAPPAN, PATTASSERRY HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA THANNYAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. UDAYABHANU V.M., S/O.MAMMU, VALUNGAL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA THANNYAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW SRI.ANZAR BASHEER SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR-20. 2. SREETHILAKAM CHITTS AND FINANCE (IN LIQUIDATION), REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN B.M.C. P.O. THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN-21. BY ADVS.SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.MONI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7667 of 2011 (G) APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONERS : Ext.P1 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 24.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE DY. TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7667 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. The amount sought to be recovered pertains to decree passed in a company claim by this court in the matter of the 2nd respondent, which is in liquidation. It is noticed that the petitioner has not contested the company claim nor had filed any appeal against the decree. Therefore, no successful challenge can be raised against the recovery steps now initiated. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merits. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire amount due, in a phased manner within a reasonable time. 3. Heard ; Adv.Sri.K.Mani, standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Even though interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that indulgence can be 2 W.P.(C).No.7667 of 2011 shown in permitting the petitioner to wipe off the liability by way of payment in instalments, within a reasonable time. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire amount due, in 6 equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.4.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/