Civil Revision No. 5702 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5702 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.10. 2009 Anil Kumar ......petitioner Versus Meena Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Laxman Dass in a Motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 23.10.2001 at about 7.00 p.m. near Chuna Ki Dhani on Jhajjar Gurgaon Road. Vide award dated 5.4.2006, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) allowed the claim petition. An award of Rs.7,60,852/- was passed in favour of the claimants and against respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Claimants, thereafter, filed an execution application. The petitioner filed an objection petition in the said execution application. Vide the impugned order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge Panipat, the objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition Civil Revision No. 5702 of 2009 (O&M) 2 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser and the land purchased by him from respondent No.6 could not be attached in the execution petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. Admittedly, an award was passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by the Tribunal. In pursuance of the award, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the execution petition. Respondent No.6 Rajbir Singh, in order to frustrate the rights of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, sold his land measuring 6 kanals 14 ½ marlas vide sale deed dated 28.6.2006 in favour of the petitioner. This clearly shows that the land had been sold by respondent No.6 to the petitioner with a mala fide intention. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the petitioner could not be described as a bona fide purchaser as the execution petition was admittedly filed on 17.5.2006. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 05, 2009 anita