Civil Revision No. 6069 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6069 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 22 , 2009 Ranbir Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Usha Devi and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the rejection of the objection petition in an execution for recovery of a claim awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel has argued that his client had entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.11.2008. The learned Executing Court has, however, rejected the objections to the attachment holding that the execution petition is pending since 11.4.2008 and previous efforts to auction the land have been thwarted. On a consideration of the material, the learned Executing Court has found that the agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner is a manipulated agreement with only a view to prevent the decree holders from receiving the compensation due to them. Learned counsel has cited Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan and another reported as 1990(1) Recent Revenue Reports 366 to contend that in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Civil Revision No. 6069 of 2009(O&M) 2 Court had held that where a sale deed had been executed of an attached land in pursuance to an agreement to sell entered into prior to the order of attachment, the contractual right would prevail over the right of the attaching creditor. However, this judgment would not be applicable for the simple reason that here no sale deed has been executed . In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court a right had been created which was being sought to be protected by the contracting purchaser. In the present case as noticed above only an agreement to sell has been executed. In the circumstances I am not persuaded to hold that the order of the learned Executing Court suffers from such material irregularity as to be liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this revision is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 22, 2009 sunita