JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Objector Nirmal Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (in short – Claims Tribunal), whereby objections filed by the petitioner and respondent no.9 have been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. Claims Tribunal passed Award in favour of respondents no.1 to 5 against respondents no.6 and 7 under the Motor Vehicles Act, granting compensation to decree-holders respondents no.1 to 5, who filed execution petition for recovery of compensation amount. In the execution petition, land measuring 02 kanals 03 marlas belonging to respondent no.6 judgment debtor was attached. Petitioner and respondent no.9 filed objection petition against the said attachment alleging that they had purchased the suit land from respondent no.6 vide sale deed dated 29.10.2003 i.e. prior to attachment and the objectors are bona fide purchasers of the said property. 4. The objection petition was contested by decree-holders, who alleged that the objectors are not bona fide purchasers of the attached land, which has been sold to frustrate the execution. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner and respondent no.9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the objectors i.e. petitioner and respondent no.9 purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.2003, whereas order for attachment thereof was made subsequently on 07.11.2003 and therefore, the land was not under attachment when the objectors purchased it. 8. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 contended that the sale was made by judgment-debtor respondent no.6 to frustrate the execution and the objectors were aware of the Award passed against the judgment-debtors. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that attachment of the land was effected prior to execution of sale deed in favour of the objectors. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that attachment of the land was effected prior to execution of sale deed in favour of the objectors. However, perusal of the execution file reveals that order for attachment of the land in question was made on 07.11.2003, whereas sale deed in favour of the objectors had been executed prior to it on 29.10.2003. In fact, actual attachment was made much later. Report on warrant of attachment, issued for attachment of the land in question, reveals that on 18.12.2003, when attachment was sought to be made, it was found that the land has already been sold by judgment-debtor respondent no.6. It is thus manifest that the land in question was not under attachment when the objectors purchased it. The Claims Tribunal thus proceeded on factually incorrect assumption that attachment had been effected prior to execution of sale deed in favour of the objectors. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by Claims Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to Claims Tribunal for fresh decision of the objections filed by petitioner and respondent no.9, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court i.e. Claims Tribunal, on 30.07.2010. Files of the Executing Court be sent back immediately. ------------