IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.11.2010 C.R.No.7618 of 2010 (O&M) Chhabeg Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhwant Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : M/s P.K.Gupta & Munish Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 28.10.2010, whereby an application filed by the judgment debtor-the present petitioner for setting aside an order dated 28.07.2010 ordering civil imprisonment of the petitioner, was dismissed. On an application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 25.10.2004 awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,900/- as compensation on account of injuries suffered by respondent No.1. In execution, the decree-holder filed an application under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for civil imprisonment of the judgment-debtor on account of failure to comply with the Award passed by the Tribunal. In the said petition, the petitioner did not appear and was proceeded ex parte on 24.07.2010. It is, thereafter, on 28.07.2010, the learned Executing Court passed an order of civil imprisonment of the petitioner. It was on 01.10.2010, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order of civil imprisonment, which has been dismissed by C.R.No.7618 of 2010 (O&M) the learned Executing Court vide order dated 28.10.2010, the order impugned in the present petition. It has been, inter alia, found that Foja Singh, grand-father of the petitioner, is owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 247 Kanals 5 Marlas having 1395/4945 shares and that there does not appear to be any economic problem in the family. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land owned by the grand-father of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for determining the ability of the petitioner to satisfy the decreetal amount and therefore, the order of civil arrest cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed upon Jolly George Varghese and another Vs. The Bank of Cochin AIR 1980 SC 470, wherein it has been held that the person, who has means to pay and does not make the payment alone, can be arrested in execution of the Civil Court decree. The respondents sought compensation on account of negligent driving of scooter. The petitioner did not contest the averments of the claimants that it is the petitioner, who was negligent in causing the accident, which led to multiple grievous injuries. It is, thus, a case where the equities has to be balanced between a person, who has suffered grievous injuries at the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner, who is said to be a member of a family, which is effluent. Mere fact that the petitioner does not have property in his own name, does not mean that legitimate expectation on account of the Award in favour of the claimant cannot be said to be defeated only for the reason that any part of the land is not recorded as owned by the petitioner. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which may 2 C.R.No.7618 of 2010 (O&M) warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 25.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3