C. R. No. 2147 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2147 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 Jaswinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Puran Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 11644-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No. 11645-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Jaswinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh – sons of Balbir Singh have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 12.03.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (in short – the Tribunal), thereby C. R. No. 2147 of 2010 (O&M) 2 dismissing objections filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), read with Section 47 (e) and Section 151 CPC. Respondents no.1 to 5 herein filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation pursuant to accident caused by a canter owned by Balbir Singh – respondent no.6 herein and driven by Joginder Singh – respondent no.7 herein, for death of Buta Singh caused in accident. Compensation was awarded in the said claim petition by the Tribunal vide Award dated 19.11.2005. Respondents no.1 to 5 herein filed execution petition, in which land belonging to Balbir Singh – judgment debtor was attached. Petitioners herein filed objections against the said attachment alleging that attached land belongs to them and not to Balbir Singh – judgment debtor. The decree holders alleged that Balbir Singh – judgment debtor transferred the land to his sons i.e. Objectors- petitioners in order to defeat the Award passed by the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 12.03.2010, dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the objectors have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that land was transferred by Balbir Singh – judgment debtor to the petitioners C. R. No. 2147 of 2010 (O&M) 3 vide transfer deed dated 15.03.2005 (Annexure P-4) and the said transfer was effected before the decision of the claim petition by the Tribunal and therefore, the land, which is now owned by the petitioners, cannot be attached in execution petition filed against Balbir Singh – judgment debtor. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no force therein. The accident took place on 18.01.2004 and the claim petition was also filed in the year 2004. It was during the pendency of the said claim petition that Balbir Singh transferred the land in question to his sons vide transfer deed dated 15.03.2005 (Annexure P-4) . It was thus brazen and crude attempt by Balbir Singh to deprive the claimants-decree holders of the fruits of the Award to be passed in their favour. The transfer was made during the pendency of the claim petition and the land has been transferred to none else but real sons of Balbir Singh – judgment debtor. It is thus manifest that transfer of land was made to avoid payment of compensation to claimant – decree holders. The transfer is hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 07, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE C. R. No. 2147 of 2010 (O&M) 4