IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4013 of 2009 Date of decision : March 05, 2010 Umed Singh ....Petitioner versus Anita and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. CB Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent nos. 6 and 7 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Umed Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 24.4.2009, Annexure P/7 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure against attachment of property have been dismissed. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein filed claim petition against Sukh Pal son of petitioner Umed Singh, Anand Kumar respondent no. 5, Mahabir Singh and Mahender Singh respondent nos. 6 and 7. In the claim petition, compensation was awarded to the claimants who filed execution petition. In execution petition property was attached alleging that the same was coparcenary property of JD Sukh Pal son of petitioner Umed Singh. Petitioner filed objections Annexure P/1 against said attachment alleging Civil Revision No. 4013 of 2009 -2- that the suit property was not coparcenary property of Sukh Pal JD. The learned executing court vide impugned order dated 24.4.2009 held the attached property to be coparcenary property and therefore, dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even coparcenary property could be attached only to the extent of share of Sukh Pal JD therein and the entire coparcenary property could not have been attached. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 has 'no objection' to the same. It may however be noticed that the petitioner has mentioned that Sukh Pal has since died during the pendency of the execution petition and he was unmarried. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of by modifying impugned order Annexure P/7 passed by the executing court to the extent that the attachment of land shall be only to the extent of the share of JD Sukh Pal in the coparcenary attached land. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 05, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'