(1.) Petitioner's grievance in this wit petition is that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, palakkad is not accepting the execution petition in O. P. (M. V. ) 1116/1991 for want of no objection certificate from the Counsel formerly appearing in the O. P. (M. V. ). There is no law which requires either the same advocate who appeared in the original proceedings to file execution petition also or requiring no objection certificate of the original Counsel for the purpose of filing execution petition. That being so, the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the execution petition on file without insisting on a no objection certificate from the former Counsel. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the M. A. C. T. , Palakkad to receive the execution petition in O. P. (M. V. ) No. 1116/1991 filed by the petitioner without insisting on a no objection certificate from the former Counsel.
(2.) The writ petition is disposed off as above.