JUDGMENT Mohd. Salam is before this Court with a request to quash the impugned recovery citation dated 6.2.2016 passed by the Tehsildar, Karchana, District Allahabad. 2. The factual situation that is so emanating, in the present case, is that before the District Consumer Forum, Consumer Case No. 406 of 2010 has been filed by Devraj Chaurasia against Mohd. Salam and the said complaint case has been partly allowed on 28.4.2014 wherein directives have been issued to handover the documents in question and in case there is failure to handover the documents, then a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be paid and in addition to the same 9% be also paid on the said amount alongwith cost and damages. 3. This is accepted position that the said order has not at all been complied with and resultantly execution proceedings have been set in motion and same have been ongoing and this much is also clearly reflected that petitioner has proceeded to prefer Appeal No. 1257 of 2014 (Mohd. Salam Vs. Devraj Chaurasia) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow wherein on the presentation of the appeal in question interim order has been accorded by clearly giving directives that in case petitioner proceeds to make deposit of 50% of the amount in question, so awarded, within four weeks, then the execution proceedings be kept in abeyance. 4. It is also accepted position that the order passed by the appellate forum has also not been complied with in its word and spirit and net effect of the same has been that after the period in question has been lapsed, the execution proceeding has been revived and pursuant thereto recovery citation has been issued. Thus the sequence of events are clear and categorical that the award in question, that has been passed by the consumer forum, is still staring on the face of it and as it has not at all been complied with in its word and spirit execution proceedings are ongoing and petitioner was given an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the interim order but he failed to complied with the terms and conditions of the said interim order, in view of this, recovery citation cannot be faulted by any means and, as such, there is no reason or occasion for us to intervene in the matter. 5. 5. Petitioner's counsel at last contended that petitioner is ready to make entire payment in question. 6. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned wherein execution proceedings are ongoing and get himself rid of the proceedings in question by making payment, in view of this, no orders are require to be passed by us. Writ petition sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.