EFA No.2 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH EFA No.2 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 19.7.2011. Nazir Singh and another ...... Appellants. versus Daljit Kaur and others ...... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the respondents Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate for respondent No.5. K.C.PURI . J. Challenge in this appeal by Nazir Singh objector is in respect of order dated 27.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) vide which the objection petition moved by Avtar Singh son of Maghar Singh and Nazir Singh son of Jeet Singh were dismissed and the order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P-4) vide which the property has been put to sale has also been challenged. 2. Briefly stated Daljit Kaur widow of Sarbans Singh, Sukhpal Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur daughters of late Sarbans Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Sarbans Singh filed petition under Section EFA No.2 of 2010 2 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Sarbans Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The said petition was ultimately accepted vide Award dated 16.10.2002 allowing a sum of Rs.2,73,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization was passed. However, Jarnail Singh Judgment- debtor after the award, sold his land in favour of Gurmukh Singh vide sale deed dated 6.11.2002. The said land belonging to Jarnail Singh JD, which was purchased by Gurmukh Singh was further sold by Gurmukh Singh to the present objectors vide sale deed dated 14.6.2006. However, from the perusal of the record, it is revealed that warrant of attachment was issued by the Executing Court on 16.5.2006 for 3.8.2006. During those proceedings, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the objectors. 3. The trial Court has dismissed the objections outrightly. 4. Learned counsel for the objector-appellant has submitted that the trial Court should have framed proper issues and thereafter decide the case. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant looks attractive but is without any force. 5. This Court in authorities Usha Devi versus Parshadi Lal & Anr. 1999(1) Civil Court Cases 110 (P&H) and Karamabit Singh versus Inder Singh & Ors 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 803 (P&H) held that in case objections are frivolous that can be dismissed outrightly. The decree-holder/claimants have got the decree in their favour in the year 2002 but in spite of that the decree holder could not get the fruits. 6. So, in these circumstances, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. EFA No.2 of 2010 3 7. However, it is made clear that in case objector pays the awarded amount to the decree-holders, in that case they shall be entitled to recover that amount from judgment debtors in the present execution itself. 8. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 19, 2011 sv