Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of respondents though name of Sri R.K. Dubey and A.P. Sharma have been shown in the cause list besides Standing Counsel. 2. It is contended that in the claim petition filed by respondents, i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 105 of 2004, only Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Vinod Kumar Agarwal were impleaded as respondents. They were shown as proprietor of Macmate Limited, Radar House, Ashbagh, Lucknow. Petitioner was never impleaded as defendant/opposite party in the aforesaid claim petition. It was allowed vide judgement dated 7.8.2007 and the defendants were held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants who were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 along with nine per cent interest. Thereafter when the execution proceedings commenced, the authorities proceeded to take possession of vehicle which belong to petitioner. He thereupon filed application for recall of ex parte order but the same has been rejected by means of impugned order observing that petitioner ought to have moved an application for recall of ex parte award and having not done so recovery is liable to be proceeded against the petitioner. 3. It is contended when petitioner was not even party in the claim petition and no notice was ever issued to him, he was never heard and no award has been delivered against him, recovery proceedings also cannot be initiated against him (the petitioner). Therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal. 4. A perusal of order dated 27.5.2010 itself shows that it has been admitted by the Court below that petitioner was not impleaded as party in the claim petition and no notice was ever issued to petitioner. The award also has been made holding defendants in claim petition responsible for payment of compensation. That being so, this Court could not find any occasion to permit recovery of the amount awarded by judgement dated 7.8.2007 from the petitioner. The approach of the Court below is apparently misconceived and bizarre. 5. In the result writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure 3 to writ petition) is hereby set aside. 6. However, it is made clear that this judgement shall not prevent the respondents from proceeding to execute award against the defendants/opposite parties impleaded in claim petition no 105 of 2004. 5. In the result writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure 3 to writ petition) is hereby set aside. 6. However, it is made clear that this judgement shall not prevent the respondents from proceeding to execute award against the defendants/opposite parties impleaded in claim petition no 105 of 2004. This judgement shall also not debar respondents from taking such legal steps as permissible in law for the purpose of claiming compensation afresh against the concerned persons. 7. The amount, if any, deposited by petitioner under the order of this Court during pendency of this writ petition shall be refunded. _