Civil Revision No. 2228 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2228 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.04.2009 M/s Mahaveera Transport Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Nirmal Gupta and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on an application moved by the petitioner, for stay of execution of award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The learned Executing Court was pleased to grant conditional stay, on petitioner furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of awarded amount along with interest, within a week from the passing of order i.e. 31.1.2009. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that order has not been complied with, and petitioner has failed to furnish bank guarantee. The learned Executing Court has been pleased to issue fresh certificate for recovery of amount, as the earlier execution warrants were not received back. Civil Revision No. 2228 of 2009 -2- The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the orders impugned cannot be sustained in law, in as much as the award passed against the petitioner is an ex parte award, and he has already moved an application for setting aside ex parte award. It is further the contention of the learned counsel, that in addition, petitioner has also filed objections before the learned Executing Court. Till the objections, and the application for setting aside are disposed of, it was not proper for the learned Executing Court to proceed with the execution. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was for the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to take a decision as to whether the execution was required to be stayed, on an application for stay moved in proceedings for setting aside of ex parte order. In absence of stay, by the Court, the learned Executing Court could not go into the merit or legality of the ex parte decree and was bound to execute. In spite of the fact that the learned Executing Court was bound to execute the decree, it showed concession to the petitioner by granting conditional stay, but he failed to avail, as admittedly no bank guarantee has been furnished in compliance of the order. The petitioner in absence of stay cannot challenge the order of the learned Executing Court in enforcing the award passed by the competent tribunal against petitioner though ex parte. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 23, 2009 R.S.