IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 29728-CII of 2010 and Civil Revision No. 1008 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 17, 2011 Kehar Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Nand Kishore @ Anand and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mrs. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Sirsa. Arguments heard. Nand Kishore @ Anand petitioner-respondent (now respondent) had filed the claim petition against Atma Ram J.D./respondent on 17.10.2002 which was accepted and award for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization was passed against the respondent-vendor of the petitioners. He was having 1/3rd share in the land measuring 20 kanals which was attached by the Tribunal for satisfaction of the decree. Now objectors have come forward with the objection that they are the bonafide purchasers for valid consideration without notice, as such the said land could not be attached. It is apparent from the circumstances of the case that the land was sold by Atma Ram respondent after filing of the claim petition by Nand Kishore and before passing of the award, therefore, he (Atma Ram) appears to have dishonestly transferred the property during the pendency of the lis pending between them, as such, such sale deed would suffer from the principles of lis- pendence. The claimant No.1 had also moved an Civil Revision No. 1008 of 2010 (O&M) -2- application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa for declaring such alienation being fraudulent, there upon Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa vide order dated 10.1.2009 declared the same as fraudulent. The necessary observations as made by the Tribunal are reproduced as under :- “During the course of argument, learned counsel for DH relied upon Surender Singh & others Vs. Omvati and others 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 46 that the decree suffered by father in favour of his sons after accident was just to avoid payment of accidental claim and it was liable to be ignored. The fact that the land shown in jamabandi for the year 2000-01 in the name of Atma Ram to the extent of 73/400 share , which has now been sold by JD has not at all been denied by him, rather his version is that all these facts require to be proved by the claimant. The claim petition was instituted on 17.10.2002 and was decided on 1.9.2005. So, in these circumstances it is made out that it was a fraudulent transfer of the land by the J.D. just to avoid payment of accidental compensation and the same is, thus, required to be attached....” This order has never been challenged in revision further the tractor in question was also sold during the pendency of the claim petition, therefore, such sale would also not bind the decree holder. The other contention is that since these objections were filed by the third party, therefore, this objection could have been treated like a suit and decided on merit after framing of the issues. In this regard it is observed that Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the objections to be decided on merits if there is some substance in it, however, the proviso to Rule 58 to Order 21 does not any require the framing of such issues. The same is reproduced as under :- “xx xx xx Provided that no such claim or objection shall be entertained :- (a) where before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; Civil Revision No. 1008 of 2010 (O&M) -3- (b) where the court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. xx xx xx xx xx xx” Thus, from the bare reading of this proviso, it transpires that if the objections are designedly framed to unnecessarily delay the execution, the same could be disposed of summarily and need not be entertained. In this case also, the petitioners cannot be said to be bonafide purchasers as they had purchased the land and the tractor during the pendency of the litigation, as such, there is no obligation upon the court to frame issues and had rightly disposed of the matter summarily. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. January 17, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge