IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.398/2011 Date of Decision : 20.1.2011. Naresh Kumar ..........Petitioner v Darshana Devi and others ..........Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Ms.BPK Brar,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral). This order will dispose of CR Nos. 398, 401 and 402 of 2011 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these revision petitions. Facts are, however, being extracted from CR No.398 of 2011. Petitioner/owner of offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No.HR-61-2335 has filed the instant revision petition for quashing the warrant of attachment of his property and its sale by way of auction dated 24.12.2010, issued by the learned Executing Court Bhiwani. Undisputed facts are that the aforesaid offending vehicle of the petitioner was involved in a motor vehicular accident with two other vehicles i.e. truck No.HR-21-3374 and Maruti Car bearing registration no.DL-4CE-1198. The claimants filed claim petitions in which the petitioner and insurer of the his offending truck were arrayed as respondents. The claim petitions ultimately culminated into passing of an award amounting to Rs.3,60,600/- in favour of respondents. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay the compensation amount to the tune of 50% each. Thus, the petitioner has been fastened with the libaility to pay Rs.1,80,300/-. Thereafter, the claimants initiated execution proceedings in which the impugned warrant of attachment dated 24.12.2010 came to be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the warrant of attachment on the ground that petitioner was in jail and as such he was not aware about the proceedings before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as Executing Court. It is further stated that however, in order to pursue the claim case instituted by respondents petitioner had given necessary instructions to his counsel and also handed over the cover note issued by the insurer to his counsel. After hearing the learned counsel, I find no merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner himself that though he was in jail but he had instructed his counsel and also handed over the cover note issued by the insurer to him. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner was seized of the claim petition and was represented by a counsel. Thus, it cannot be believed that petitioner was not in touch with his counsel or was not aware of the fate of the claim petitions filed against him. Likewise, it also cannot be believed that after passing of the award he was not aware of the execution proceedings pending against him. Further, it has also not been disclosed as to for how long the petitioner was in jail and when was he released from there. It has only been stated that he was confined in Central Jail, Patiala. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned warrant of attachment which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 20.1.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge