( 1 ) WRIT petition is by an insurance company, who was a party to a claim application before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of court of Small Causes, Bangalore City.

( 2 ) THE claim application of an injured in the accident involving a motor vehicle covered by a policy issued by the petitioner insurance company came to be allowed in terms of the award dated 18. 5. 2005 passed in M. V. C. No. 4527 of 2003.

( 3 ) IT appears that petitioner insurance company had taken the defence that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as the owner who had taken out the policy had committed certain breaches of the conditions of the policy.

( 4 ) BE that as it may, the Tribunal observing that in terms of the decision of the apex Court it was open to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner as indicated in the judgment of the supreme Court and proceeded to pass the award.

( 5 ) CLAIMANTS proceeded to execution of the award by filing Execution Petition No. 390 of 2006. It is in this execution proceedings it appears that petitioner insurance company filed I. A. Nos. I and II praying for staying the release of the award amount to the petitioner in the claim petition, which had been deposited by it till the owner of the vehicle, i. e. , judgment-debtor furnishes security for the recovery of the amount by the insurance company from such owner as the insurance company was entitled to recover such amount from the owner in terms of the decision of the Apex court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, 2004 ACJ 721 (SC ).

( 6 ) THE application before the executing court was opposed by claimant-judgment-debtor. It was contended that execution of the award amount cannot be stalled at the instance of petitioner insurance company for the purpose of passing certain orders on the application filed by the petitioner as it was a matter inter se between the petitioner insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. In the light of such version the executing court found it proper and rejected the applications for staying the release of the award amount and to direct the owner to provide security to the insurance company to its satisfaction in respect of the amount of award observing as under: " (8) The counsel for the petitioner No. 1 mainly relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court referred above. It is argued that for the purpose of recovering the amount from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file proceeding, it may be required to file recovery proceedings against the insured, before the concerned executing court. In case of default it is open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of securities to be furnished or from other property or properties of owner of the vehicle, the insured. Nowhere in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is stated that the amount deposited shall not be paid to the claimant if the insured failed to furnish securities for the satisfaction of the amount due to the insurer. Moreover, the executing court cannot go behind the decree. In the decree, it is stated that right of liberty to recovery given to respondent No. 1 after depositing the amount as per the award and no decree was passed against the claimant-respondent. Moreover the scope of section 147 was not brought to the notice of hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above with due respect to the decision. The above said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. So, this petition is filed against wrong person and there was no decree against claimant. Hence I answer point for consideration in the negative. Accordingly, i pass the following order:

"i. A. No. I filed under section 151 of civil Procedure Code, to stay the release of the award amount is rejected and I. A. No. II filed under section 151 of Civil procedure Code to vacate the stay order dated 27. 3. 2006 by respondent is allowed. However,