Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 985 (PNJ)

Mohan Lal v. Chotti @ Labh Kaur

2003-07-21

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 2.8.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur while executing the award dated 27.3.1990. 2. Initially the claimants have sought compensation by impleading Mohan Lal, owner of tempo No. PBS-3725 as respondent No. 2. The said respondent was proceeded ex-parte. An ex-parte award dated 27.3.1990 was passed. In execution of the said award, attachment of the property of the petitioner was carried out. Petitioner filed an objection before the Executing Court to the effect that he is not party to the claim application and his property has been wrongly attached. Such objection was allowed by the Executing Court. Claimants disputed such order of the Executing Court by a revision petition. The said revision was withdrawn with liberty to seek amendment in the award. 3. After the withdrawal of the revision petition, the claimants moved application for correction of tempo No. PBS-3795 instead of PBS-3725. Subsequently, attachment of the property of the petitioner was carried which was objected to by the petitioner. Learned Executing Court dismissed the objection holding that once the amendment in the award has been carried out and such order has not been challenged, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute the correction of the award. 4. Notice of this application was issued. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were served and ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 6.6.2001. However, the said order was not brought to the notice of the Court at later stage and fresh notices were ordered to be issued. 5. I have gone through the award passed by the learned Executing Court and find that the objections filed by the petitioner have been wrongly dismissed. Admittedly, correction in the award dated 27.3.1990 has been made on 21.10.1997. No notice of such application for amendment was given to any of the respondent. It is doubtful whether the correction of vehicle No. as PBS 3795 would be enough to settle (saddle ?) the petitioner with liability of the award made ex-parte in the year 1990. There is no other circumstance on record to connect the present petitioner with the respondent No. 2 impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal. 6. It is doubtful whether the correction of vehicle No. as PBS 3795 would be enough to settle (saddle ?) the petitioner with liability of the award made ex-parte in the year 1990. There is no other circumstance on record to connect the present petitioner with the respondent No. 2 impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal. 6. Therefore, I allow the present revision petition, set aside the order dated 2.8.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge and direct the Executing Court to decide the objection afresh and fix the identity of the person who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the claim application. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Executing Court on 18.8.2003. Petition allowed.