THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.570 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent herein filed M.V.O.P.No.290 of 1989 in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool District claiming compensation for the injury suffered by him in an accident involving truck bearing No.AAA-8911. The appellant figured as the owner of the vehicle. The OP was allowed and compensation was awarded. Since the amount was not deposited, the respondent filed E.P.No.151 of 2004 and sought for attachment of an item of an immovable property. The appellant filed E.A.No.27 of 2008 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. According to him, his brother, with identical name was the actual owner of the vehicle and that his brother died on 15.03.2004. It is stated that the notice in the EP was served upon him and the properties owned by him are sought to be proceeded with. The application was resisted by the respondent. The executing Court dismissed the EA through its order, 08.02.2010. The same is challenged in this CMA. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The very institution of E.A.No.27 of 2008 by the appellant was untenable. The reason is that he has not chosen to implead the legal representatives of his brother as parties to E.P.No151 of 2004 or M.V.O.P.No.290 of 1989 and the decree holder alone was impleaded. The executing Court ought not to have numbered the EA at all. Even otherwise, the executing Court has undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were filed. The respondent deposed as RW.1. Except stating that his brother with the same name died, the appellant did not even furnish the names of the legal representatives of his deceased brother. Further, he failed to establish that the executing Court sought to proceed against the properties, which exclusively belong to him. Everything was, as vague as it could be. He made attempts to scuttle the execution proceedings, on one ground or the other. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the executing Court. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is stated that the decretal amount is very meager. It is directed that if the appellant deposits the decretal amount within a period of six weeks from today, the executing Court shall close the EP and in case, the amount is not paid within that time, it shall proceed further in the matter, on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.27.07.2010 VGB