IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.32104-C-II of 2010 in/and CIVIL REVISION NO.2287 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 9 th JULY, 2012 Ramgarhia Bus Service (Regd.) Bhadaur …. Petitioner Versus Amritpal & others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Deol, Advocate for Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for applicant-respondent No.4. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for non-applicant-petitioner. None for non-applicant respondent No.1. * * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) In execution of award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (in short, the Tribunal) in favour of claimant respondent No.1 herein, bus No. PB-03-E-9596 was attached and sold. Present petitioner was not party to the claim petition and the award. The petitioner alleged that it is owner of the aforesaid bus. Accordingly, petitioner filed application before the Tribunal (executing Court) for setting aside order of sale of the bus and for release of the bus from attachment. The Tribunal dismissed the said application vide order dated 19.04.2007 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, during pendency of the revision petition, the said bus was sold by the executing Court and was purchased by Prem Kumar Kataria who was, therefore, impleaded as respondent No.4 to the instant revision petition by order of this Court. Vide order dated 01.04.2010, the revision petition was allowed holding that petitioner is owner of the aforesaid bus which could not be sold in the execution proceedings because petitioner was not judgment debtor. CM No.32104-C-II of 2010 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION NO.2287 OF 2007 - 2 - Accordingly the sale of the bus was set aside and the bus was ordered to be released to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. Respondent No.4-purchaser of the bus has filed the present application bearing CM No.32104-C-II of 2010 for modification of order dated 01.04.2010 alleging that the bus cannot be returned to the petitioner because the same had already been dismantled and sold as scrap and, therefore, the bus cannot be restored to the petitioner, pursuant to order dated 01.04.2010 passed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for non-applicant-petitioner submits that since the bus has allegedly been dismantled and sold as scrap and, therefore, cannot be restored to the petitioner, the petitioner should be given liberty to file suit for recovery of price of the bus against the respondents and the limitation should be condoned. There is considerable merit in this submission, which is very fair and genuine. Counsel for applicant-respondent No.4 also, therefore, has no objection to the aforesaid submission. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is allowed partly. Order dated 01.04.2010, whereby the revision petition was allowed, is recalled and in modification thereof, the revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file suit for recovery of price of the bus and if any such suit is filed within two months from today, the suit shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. Application as well as the main case stand disposed of, accordingly. Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the suit, if any, that may be filed. 9th July, 2012 ‘raj’ (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE