RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 24.04.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar in Execution No. 11 of 2009 titled as Narinder Kaur and Ors. V/s. Harpreet Singh and Ors., vide which objections dated 24.04.2010 filed by the Petitioner -Objector were dismissed and learned Executing Court has ordered to sell the property i.e. bus bearing registration No. PB -13 -G -9855.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, bus bearing registration No. PB -13 -G -9855 was involved in an accident being driven by Malkiat Singh i.e. Respondent No. 7 and registered owner of the bus on the date of accident i.e. 23.01.2008 was Harpreet Singh, Respondent No. 6. In the said accident Balwinder Singh @Binder died on account of injuries received in the accident. Claim petition was filed by widow, minor children and mother of deceased i.e. Respondents No. 1 to 5 for grant of compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading driver, registered owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle as parties. The award was passed in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 5 and against Harpreet Singh and Malkiat Singh i.e. registered owner and driver, respectively of the offending vehicle. Harpreet Singh i.e. registered owner also filed appeal before this Court, which was got dismissed as withdrawn vide Annexure P2. Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed application for execution of the said award passed in their favour and against driver and registered owner of the bus involved in the accident. During the said execution proceedings, the bus which was involved in the accident was attached.
(3.) OBJECTIONS were filed by the present Petitioner that he had purchased the said bus much before the said accident and however, registration of the bus was not changed in his name as the papers were pending before the registration authority and hence, it is contended that the bus which was owned by him on the date of accident cannot be attached in this execution. Objections of the Petitioner were dismissed by learned Executing Court by passing the impugned order, Annexure P6, which reads as under: The Objector, Joginder Singh, filed the objections on the grounds that the bus in question, was purchased by Joginder Singh from Harpreet Singh and as such now Joginder Singh, is the owner of the bus in question. He filed copy of the RC of the bus. He submitted that bus in question has been wrongly attached by the Court, as Harpreet Singh, is not owner of the bus in question. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant/DH and learned Counsel for the objector and have minutely gone through the record, particularly the RC of the bus in question. Copy of the RC of the bus in question, produced by the objector himself fully proves that bus in question, was in the name of Harpreet Singh, JD. The MACT award was passed against Harpreet Singh, on 21.01.2009 and the bus was transferred by Harpreet Singh, JD in the name of Joginder Singh, applicant, on 06.05.2009 i.e. after passing of the award, fully knowing that the award has been passed against Harpreet Singh, so, this transfer has been made by Harpreet Singh in the name of Joginder Singh, only just to evade his liability to pay the amount of award to the claimants. So, these objections, filed by objector, Joginder Singh, are hereby, dismissed, as the same are nothing but abuse of process of law. Applicant, filed notice Under Section 21 Rule 66 Code of Civil Procedure Respondent, is ex -parte. Therefore, property of JD, Harpreet Singh attached, in this case, be put to sale and warrant of sale be issued as follows: Notice :07.05.2010 Munadi :28.05.2010 Sale :11.06.2010 Report :17.07.2010;