IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.123 OF 2010 Between : Mohammed Saleem ...APPELLANT A N D A.Anand Reddy and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.123 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 96, Order XLIII, Rules 1 & 2 read with Order XXI Rule 58 (4) and 59 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the order, dated 21.12.2009, in E.A.No.102 of 2009 in E.P.No.96 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Order XXI Rule 59 CPC to stay of sale of movable property i.e., Mini Buses bearing Nos.AP-28-W-9451 and AP-28-W-9452, pending disposal of claim petition in Execution Application No.101 of 2009, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are, the first respondent herein filed Original Petition No.624 of 2001 before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 2.9.2000 at about 4.00 PM due to rash or negligent driving of driver of Matador van bearing registration No.AAO 7047. The second respondent herein is the owner and the third respondent herein is the driver, of the offending vehicle. The fourth respondent herein is the hirer of the offending vehicle. The Claims Tribunal allowed the Original Petition in part against the respondents 2 to 4 herein, granting compensation of Rs.2,91,000/- with interest and costs. Thereafter, the first respondent herein filed Execution Petition No.96 of 2006 to realize the amount of compensation, by way of attachment and sale of immovable properties viz. three Mini busses, of the fourth respondent/judgment debtor no.3 school. In the said Execution Petition, the appellant/third party filed claim application in Execution Application No.101 of 2009 to raise attachment and release Mini busses bearing Nos. AP28W 9451 and AP28W 9452, and made the present Execution Application No.102 of 2009 to stay all further proceedings in the Execution Petition pending disposal of the claim application. The said petition was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended the appellant, being a third party, acquired the fourth respondent school and became the owner of the two mini buses bearing registration Nos.AP28W 9451 and AP28W 9452 which are sought to be sold for realization of the compensation amount, but the petition was dismissed without resolving the issue in the claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and stay all further proceedings in the Execution Petition pending disposal of the claim application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the two mini buses sought to be sold stand in the name of respondent No.4 herein; that the petitioner is not the owner of the two mini buses and therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly refused to grant stay of further proceedings in the Execution Petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The two mini buses bearing registration Nos.AP28W 9451 and AP28W 9452 respectively were attached in the Execution Petition No.96 of 2006 in pursuance of the decree in Original Petition No.624 of 2001. When the Execution proceedings were pending, the present appellant filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, claiming that he is the owner of the two Mini busses sought to be sold. 6. The appellant filed a claim petition in E.A.No.101 of 2009 stating that he the Managing Trustee of M/s. Noble School Educational Trust and by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding between the appellant and the Managing Trustee of M/s. Noble School. The appellant himself stated that the two mini buses bearing registration Nos.AP28W 9451 and AP28W 9452 stand in the name of M/s Noble School Educational Trust. Such is the case, the petition is not filed on behalf of Trust, but it is filed in his individual capacity. So long as, the registration certificate is not transferred in terms of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) under no circumstances, it cannot be said the appellant is the registered owner of two mini buses. Unless the requirements contained in Section 50 of the Act have been complied with and the change in the registration certificate has taken place, the ownership of the vehicle remains with the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the registration certificates of the two mini buses have been transferred in the name of the petitioner. So, when on his own showing and as per the registration certificates issued by the competent authority, the appellant is not the registered owner of the two mini buses, the question of claiming that the two mini buses as belonging to him does not arise. Considering these aspects, the Claims Tribunal rightly dismissed the application and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 08, 2011. YVL/DRK