JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It appears that a motor accident claim petition filed against the petitioner was decreed exparte. Against the exparte decree an application under Order IX Rule 13 was filed which was allowed subject to payment of cost. The order also specifies that in case the costs were not paid the order would cease to operate. 3. Admittedly, the costs were not paid within the time specified. In this connection, it has been submitted that an application for extension of time was filed on 17.10.2013 but the same has not been considered till date, while the amount of compensation awarded is sought to be recovered from the petitioner by coercive process and in this regard an order has been passed on 17.03.2015. This is the order impugned in the petition. 4. It is therefore, clear that the impugned order has been passed for recovery of the amount of compensation granted to the respondent in a claim petition, which order for all practical purposes is final. 5. It is relevant to note that this order is not under challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. Under the circumstances, the main order under which the recovery is sought to be made not being under challenge, it is not possible for the court to stay the recovery proceedings. 7. The relief therefore, prayed by means of this writ petition cannot be granted. 8. However, it will be open for the petitioner to press his application for extension of time alleged to have been filed on 17.10.2013 before the court concerned. Accordingly and subject to the observations given above, this writ petition is dismissed.