IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7935 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MARTIN M.A, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O,AUGUSTHY, MOONJELY HOUSE, MARANGADAM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), ALUVA , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683101 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683576. ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ------------------------------- ADDL.R3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE CITY HEIGHTS BUILDINGS, CHALAKUDY SOUTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 307, IS IMPLEADED ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 17.03.2011 IN IA.4884/2011. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7935 of 2011-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated for realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P2 award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is the 2nd respondent in the said award. The Tribunal allowed compensation to the claimant therein, and the 3rd respondent herein was directed to make payment of the amount. But liberty was reserved in favour of the 3rd respondent to recover the amounts from respondents 1 and 2 in Ext.P2 award. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he was ex- parte in the proceedings before the Tribunal and the findings permitting recovery from the petitioner was happened to be issued on the basis of an erroneous appreciation of the factual situation. However, it is contended that the petitioner had already approached the appellate court challenging Ext.P2 award. It is submitted W.P(C) No.7935 of 2011-N 2 that M.A.C.A No.519/2011 filed in this regard is pending disposal before this Court. The said appeal is stated to have been filed along with application seeking condonation of delay and it is submitted that this Court had already issued notice on the delay condonation application. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the delay is not condoned, the petitioner is not in a position to seek appropriate interim relief against execution of the award, pending disposal of the appeal. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain the recovery steps till the matter is considered by the appellate court. 3. Inspite of service of notice from this court nobody enters appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent and they have not chosen to contest the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued to keep in abeyance the coercive steps of recovery for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek W.P(C) No.7935 of 2011-N 3 appropriate interim relief from the appellate court. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice for a period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief in the appeal, which is already filed against Ext.P2 award. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab