AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The dismissal of a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is under challenge in this original petition.
Heard Sri.Anoop P.V, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arjun Sreedhar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3.
The O.P.(MV) was instituted against the 4th respondent by respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation in relation to an accident that occurred on
13.4.2009. The O.P. was filed on 11.6.2009. Along with the original petition I.A.No.231/2009 was filed seeking attachment of the vehicle in question
(KL-11 AA-847). Notice was ordered on the application. After service of notice on the 4th respondent, who was the respondent in the said
proceeding, an order of attachment was passed on 17.7.2009. Subsequently an award was passed on the claim petition.
In the execution proceeding, the petitioner herein filed a claim petition contending that he had purchased the vehicle in question in April 2009 and
that the registration was transferred in his name on 4.7.2009. The sale was prior to the original petition and the attachment proceedings; he is a bona
fide purchaser for value, and accordingly sought for lifting of the attachment over the vehicle.
As rightly noticed by the tribunal, the petitioner has not mentioned the date of purchase. The sale is not evidenced by any sale letter or document
relating to sale. The O.P.(MV) along with the attachment application was filed on 11.6.2009 on which, notice was ordered. The transfer of
registration was on 4.7.2009, which is subsequent thereto. The petitioner is alleged to be a close relative of the 4th respondent. On consideration of the
entire materials, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the alleged sale transaction is not bona fide and that the transfer was only intended to
defeat the O.P(MV). The finding of the tribunal is based on materials. There is no illegality with the order impugned.
The Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
It is reported that the execution petition E.P.No.54 of 2015 presently stands dismissed. In view of the fact that sale of the vehicle in question was
deferred by this Court and that the order has been in force till today, the execution court shall have the EP restored back to file with notice to the
judgment debtor-4th respondent and taken to a logical conclusion expeditiously.
Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal, forthwith.