IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22013 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUSEELA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KAVISSERY HOUSE, IMURI P.O., KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR (R.R.) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22013 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of the 'Court fee', pursuant to the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner on default, which in fact was permitted to be filed as an 'indigent person'. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default was never wilful but because of some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner has sought to have the suit restored, by filing an interlocutory application, along with an I.A. to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till such time. The case of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner and the above proceedings, that recovery proceedings have been set in motion, invoking the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel points out that, the I.A. preferred by the petitioner seeking to have the suit resorted has been quite casually dismissed by the Court below (Sub Court, Perumbavoor, in OS 134/2009) and the revenue authorities are very much after the petitioner; which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. It is also 2 WP(C) No. 22013/2010 stated that, the petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Sub Court dismissing the I.A. and that the petitioner intends to file an appeal; simultaneously adding that the only relief now pressed before this Court is to have some time in this regard. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings, if aggrieved of the orders stated as passed by the Sub Court in Ext.P3 dismissing I.A. for restoration of the suit. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc