Civil Revision No.2 of 2013 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.2 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision : January 2, 2013

Sunder

...... Petitioner

Versus

Ms. Promila Malik & others

...... Respondents

****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present :

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

Amol Rattan Singh, J (Oral)

The petitioner in the present case has challenged the order

dated 01.12.2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(in short, 'MACT'), Rohtak, vide which the applications of the petitioner

herein, dated 26.05.2012 and 28.09.2012 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), for

setting aside the ex parte proceedings and deleting his name in the execution

petition, have been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the learned MACT had

awarded a sum of `4,32,000/- as compensation to the respondents, who are

the widow, minor son and two other legal heirs of one Krishan Kumar

Malik, who died in a road accident on 11.09.2001. This award of the

learned MACT is dated 11.08.2004.

Civil Revision No.2 of 2013 (O&M)

2

For realization of the said compensation amount, the decree

holders (respondents herein) had filed an execution petition on 08.11.2004

and a recovery warrant was issued on 20.05.2006 by the learned MACT.

However, since it could not be executed, an application was filed on

29.03.2007 for initiation of action against respondent No.6 herein, who was

the driver of the jeep with which the accident took place. Application was

moved in view of the fact that respondent No.6 herein (Shri Chand) had

transferred his land in favour of his brother, i.e. the present petitioner, after

pronouncement of the award on 11.08.2004 by way of a release deed dated

07.03.2005 and the said land is also stated to have been mutated in favour of

the present petitioner on 31.05.2005.

On 07.04.2007, the Collector, Rohtak, was directed, by the

MACT, to submit a report and, subsequent to the report, the decree holders

(present respondents) filed an application on 25.08.2007 for impleading the

present petitioner in the execution proceedings. Notice issued to the present

petitioner, on that application, was received back unserved with the report

that he was not found present at his house despite repeated visits and that

his mother had also refused to accept notice. Thereafter, the learned MACT

directed that recovery be effected from the present petitioner in view of the

fact that the judgment debtor, i.e. present respondents No.6 and brother of

the present petitioner had, in collusion, transferred the land in favour of the

petitioner, only to avoid satisfaction of the decree by sale of the property.

This order was passed relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of

Surender Singh Vs. Omvati and others, 2005 (3) PLR 748. Till 12.11.2012

the warrant of sale was received back unexecuted, on the ground that none

Civil Revision No.2 of 2013 (O&M)

3

had come to participate in the auction proceedings. Upon this, the

concerned Tehsildar was directed by the MACT on 26.05.2012 to appear in

person on 02.06.2012. On the very same date, i.e. 26.05.2012, the present

petitioner preferred an application before the learned MACT for setting

aside the ex parte proceedings and for summoning him as a necessary party

in the said case and thereafter, on 28.09.2012 another application was

moved for deleting his name from the array of parties in the execution

petition.

It has been specifically recorded in para 10 of the order

impugned that, in the release deed dated 07.03.2005, executed by

Shri Chand (present respondent No.6), in favour of his brother

(present petitioner), there is no reference at all that any sale consideration

was ever paid by the present petitioner to his brother or to his sister as

consideration for sale of the land sought to be auctioned for realization of

the decretal amount. The learned MACT has furthe