JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner is the decree holder in whose favour award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No.139 of 1986. It seems that during the course of execution proceedings, an application was filed by Ram Lakhan, the owner of the offending vehicle Paper No.12 Ga, in which prayer was made for pre-poning the date fixed in the execution case and for staying the recovery in the meantime. It seems that on such application being filed, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by impugned order dated 3.9.2015, stayed the recovery certificate, after recording a finding that a sum of Rs.74,700/- is to be recovered from Ram Lakhan and equivalent sum from Om Prakash, but by inadvertence, the recovery has been issued in the name of Ram Lakhan alone, for the entire amount of Rs.1,24,700/-. The matter is now to come before the court on 17.10.2015,the date already fixed. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the recovery certificate has been put in abeyance without hearing the petitioner. 2. It appears from the record that on 3.9.2015 when the Tribunal has stayed the recovery certificate, no date was fixed and the matter was taken up on an application filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the finding recorded in the order is that by inadvertence, recovery certificate was wrongly issued in the name of one person only, whereas under the award, the recovery is to be made from Ram Lakhan and Om Prakash. 3. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, specifically in view of the fact that the order keeping the recovery proceedings in abeyance, is only upto the next date i.e. 17.10.2015. It is always open to the petitioner to appear in the proceedings on that date and apprise the executing court about the true nature of the award, so that the execution proceedings are taken to their logical end without any further delay. 4. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.