IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 71 of 2020 Reserved on: 21^st May, 2025 Date of Decision: 17^th June, 2025 Naresh Kumar @ Godu …Petitioner Versus Sandhya Devi & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sgharma Sr. Advocate with Mr.Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Respondent No.1 is proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.10.2024.

Respondents No.1(a) and 1(b) are also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated

30.9.2024.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Present Revision Petition has been preferred by Decree Holder against order dated 25.9.2020 passed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, exercising jurisdiction of Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal (in short ‘MACT’), dismissing the application preferred by Decree Holder for attachment of property, after cancellation of transfer/relinquishment deed dated 19.2.2015 executed by original Judgment Debtor Sandhya Devi in favour of respondents No.1(a) and 1(b) and revenue entries made in the revenue record in furtherance thereto.

2 Relevant facts for adjudication of present petition, are that a claim petition, preferred by petitioner/Decree Holder under Motor Vehicles APct (MV Act), was allowed by the MACT vide award dated 03.10.2013 by awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.5,25,000/- along with interest aHt the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till payment. Judgment Debtor No.1 Sandhya Devi (respondent No.1) and driver of vehicle Kewal Kumar (Judgment Debtor No.2) were held liable to pay the compensation amount to the Decree Holder.

3 The aforesaid Award was not assailed by Judgment Debtors. However, the Judgment Debtors did not pay the compensation to the Decree Holder. Resultantly, Decree Holder preferred Execution Petition No. 21/10 of 2014 (19 of 2014/CRC No.17 of 2014) dated 7.3.2014 for realization of amount from the Judgment Debtors.

4 During pendency of petition, Judgment Debtors were served for 29.4.2g014. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 12.6.2014 for filing the objections on behalf of Judgment Debtors. Objections were filed on 10.07.2014. The matter was ordered to be listed for consideration on 4.8.2014 and

2.9.2014.

5 On 2.9.2014 matter was referred to Lok Adalat for conciliation but not compromised and thereafter, on 27.11.20214 warrant of attachment of immovable property of Judgment Debtors was ordered to be issued for 26.12.2014 on taking steps within seven days. On 26.12.2014 matter was adjourned in the same terms by granting seven days’ further time to take appropriate steps.

6 On 24.02.2015 warrants of attachment issued for the said date for recovery of decreetal amount were not received back from concernedP Office and therefore, matter was adjourned for issuing reminder to concerned Office and Execution Petition was ordered to be listed for 18.4.2015. H

7 It is also matter of record that in furtherance to order dated 26.12.2014 warrants were issued against immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.2 Kewal Kumar whereas with respect to immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.1 Sandhya Devi, Decree Holder received the information from the concerned Revenue Authorities on 28.2.2015 under Right to Information Act.

8 Matter was never listed on 18.4.2015 but was taken up for consideration on 30.6C.2015. On 30.6.2015 it was recorded in order that matter was listed in cause list at Sr. No. 38 but case file was not produced by Ahalmad and Ahalmad was directed to produce the file and put up the same on

21.7.2g015 for further order.

9 On 21.7.2015 and on subsequent date i.e. 28.8.2015 the Presiding Officer was on leave and matter was adjourned for 27.10.2015.

10 On 27.10.2015 warrant of attachment of immovable property of Judgment Debtor Kewal Kumar was received back duly executed and notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was issued for 5.12.2015 to Judgment Debtor Kewal Kumar to show cause as to why his attached property be not s