Civil Revision No. 5232 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5232 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9. 2009 Gurudwara Sach Khand Ishar Darbar ......petitioner Versus Surinder Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the District Judge, Ropar. Plaintiffs-Surinder Kaur and Hardev Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of their son Daljit Singh in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of Jatinder Singh, while driving car No.DL-1C-7700 owned by Sant Mann Singh. Civil Revision No. 5232 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Vide award dated 3.2.2005, the claim petition was allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (Annexure P-1). Claimants filed execution application. The Executing Court ordered the attachment of the property of judgment debtor (owner of the offending car). Thereafter, an application was filed by Gurudwara Sach Khand Ishar Darbar, Phul Khurd Tehsil and District Ropar (for short 'the Gurudwara) that the order of attachment of the land of Gurudwara be recalled. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the third party was liable to be decided by way of a proper trial by framing necessary issues. The same could not have been dismissed in a summary manner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pohlo Ram Sharma and others v. Narinder Singh Randhawa and others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 442 and Gram Panchayat, Hassanpur vs. Jagdish Chand and others 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 636. As per the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Annexure P-6) placed on record Sant Baba Mann Singh is owner of half share of the suit property and in column No.5, the land is described to be in self cultivation of the owners. Although in column No.8, it has been mentioned that the Gurudwara had been constructed in part of the land. As per the report submitted by the Civil Revision No. 5232 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Kanungo, the land was in the name of Sant Baba Mann Singh, which was attached for the purposes of recovery of the awarded amount. However, there is no entry in the name of the Gurudwara through Surjan Singh in the revenue record. In these circumstances, learned Executing Court rightly held that Sant Baba Mann Singh was owner to the extent of half share in the attached land and consequently the objection petition filed by third party, who had no concern with the attached land, was liable to be dismissed. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as in the present case the objection petition was dismissed in a summary manner as it was frivolous. The objection petition was filed by a person, who had no concern with the attached land. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality which may call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 14, 2009 anita