Civil Revision No.6860/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6860/2010 Date of decision:20.1.2011. Santosh Rani .............Petitioner v Prem Kumar and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Bhupinder Ghai,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J. This order will dispose of CR No.6860 and 6861 of 2010, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions. However, facts are being extracted from CR No.6860 of 2010. Petitioner/owner of the offending vehicle-a Max Pick Up Van bearing Registration No.RJ-13GA/1550- has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by learned Executing Court whereby the moveable properties of the petitioner have been ordered to be auctioned. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present revision Civil Revision No.6860/2010 2 petition are that the aforesaid offending vehicle owned by the petitioner was involved in a motor vehicular accident in which respondents suffered injuries and the Maruti Alto Car bearing registration no.PB- 03-M/5757 also suffered extensive damages. They filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda. In the claim petition filed by the respondents, the driver, the husband of the petitioner and the earlier registered owner of the offending vehicle were arrayed as respondents. The husband of the petitioner was arrayed as a respondent being the actual owner in view of the fact that he had got the offending vehicle-a Maxi Pick Up Van, releaed on superdari claiming himself to be the owner. Since all the respondents despite service failed to appear hence they were proceeded ex parte. Resultantly, an ex parte award dated 21.2.2009 was passed and the respondent-claimant Prem Kumar was held entitled to a sum of Rs.52,400/- on account of damage to the vehicle besides costs of Rs.1052.50 and claimant-Jasbir Kaur (in CR No.6861/2010) was held entitled to Rs.20,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by her. The driver and respondent no.2 (husband of the petitioner) who claimed to be owner of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation amount. Thereafter respondents filed execution application as well as list of the property of the respondents (driver and husband of the petitioner). The learned Executing Court after considering the Civil Revision No.6860/2010 3 execution application passed the impugned order dated 5.10.2010. Hence the present revision petition. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of both the petitions. Ordered accordingly. 20.1.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge