Civil Revision No. 2193 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2193 of 2010 Date of Decision : 1.4.2010 Devinder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Santosh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. N.K. Malhotra, advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2009, passed by the learned executing Court vide which application moved by the petitioner for releasing the deposited awarded amount, as per the share of proforma respondent No.4, has been dismissed. The petitioner claiming himself to be the father of the deceased also sought a direction for release of his share out of the awarded amount on account of death of his minor son. The learned Tribunal rejected his application by holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any claim for the reason that he was a legal heir in Schedule-II, whereas his mother being legal heir in Schedule-I, was entitled to claim share in preference to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal further held, that the petitioner was not entitled to claim, also for the reason, that there was a litigation between the Civil Revision No. 2193 of 2010 2 parties and that the petitioner was not looking after the child, who was staying with the mother, therefore, he could not seek share in compensation from his wife as he was not looking after the child also. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the learned executing court erroneously, recalled the order which was not permissible in law. This contention is totally misconceived, as he has not been able to point out any order, which is said to have been withdrawn by the learned executing Court. The application moved by the petitioner was misconceived. Once no compensation was awarded to the petitioner, he had no occasion to claim share in the compensation, which was awarded in the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in favour of decree-holder. It is well settled law that the executing Court could not go behind the decree. No relief could be granted to the petitioner, which was not granted in original award, which was pending execution. No merit. Dismissed. 1.4.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE