High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 03 P&H CK 0082

Smt. Rani Devi and Others vs Hawa Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 March 2007 · Citation: (2008) ACJ 2435 : (2007) 146 PLR 643 : (2007) 2 RCR(Civil) 752

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pritam Pal, J
RESULT
Allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 333 words

Pritam Pal, J.—This petition filed by the petitioners, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated October 14, 2006, whereby an application Annexure P-6 of the petitioners, for transfer of execution of the decree/award, passed in a claim case, under the Motor Vehicles Act, was dismissed. Further, cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioners for not placing on record the list of property of the judgment debtor-respondent No. 1 Hawa Singh, situated in the State of Rajasthan.

2.

The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in fact, respondent No. 1 Hawa Singh, who has been held liable to pay half of the amount of the award/decree passed in a claim case, does not own and possess any property in the State of Haryana, rather his property is situated in village Urika, District Jhunghunu (Rajastan). The description of the property is contained in Annexure P-4. In such like matters, the learned Claim Tribunal, should not be so technical, while granting relief to the victims/claimants.

3.

In view of the provisions of Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Claim Tribunal, should have sent the decree/award, to be executed to the learned District Judge Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), where the property of judgment debtor-respondent No. 1 Hawa Singh, is situated, for due execution of the award/decree passed in a favour of the petitioners.

4.

Taking an over-all view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and consequently, the impugned order is set aside, with a further direction to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, for sending the case of the petitioners to the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), who would further take necessary steps for execution of the decree/award dated March 18, 1992, passed in favour of the petitioners.

5.

A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani as well as the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu (Rajastan) for compliance.