Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1938 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. Dilbagh Singh

2011-11-01

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral) - C.M.No.25923-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6646 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 22.5.2010, Annexure P6, dated 7.10.2010, Annexure P11, and dated 28.9.2011, Annexure P12 passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that vide award dated 22.2.2006 rendered in MACT case No.78 of 2002, the then MACT, Amirtsar, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,57,601.91 with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of entire amount to Dilbagh Singh. The award was challenged before this Court by National Insurance Company. However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2007. During pendency of the appeal, Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.1,93,635/- in order to satisfy the award on 9.5.2006 and vide an interim order of this Court dated 23.4.2007, the amount was allowed to be withdrawn on filing of adequate security. Dilbagh Singh through his special attorney, Joginder Singh filed an application seeking issuance of refund of amount of Rs.1,93,635/-. The then MACT Amritsar vide order dated 19.5.2007 ordered disbursement of the amount in favour of Joginder Singh being attorney of Dilbagh Singh on his furnishing security of Rs.2.5 lacs. Joginder Singh furnished indemnity bond with a surety in the like amount, which was furnished by the present petitioner and the amount was released on the surety of present petitioner. However, Dilbagh Singh filed an application before District Judge, Amritsar, that the amount was not paid to him by Joginder Singh and hence, prayer was made to direct him either to deposit the amount in the Court or to make payment to him. Learned District Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned order dated 22.5.2010 held that Joginder Singh received amount of compensation on behalf of Dilbagh Singh and hence he was supposed to pay the same to the applicant and as he has failed to make the payment to the original owner, he is liable to indemnify the applicant. Learned District Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned order dated 22.5.2010 held that Joginder Singh received amount of compensation on behalf of Dilbagh Singh and hence he was supposed to pay the same to the applicant and as he has failed to make the payment to the original owner, he is liable to indemnify the applicant. Following order was passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar:- “As a result of above discussion, application is allowed and Joginder Singh son of S.Kahzan Singh, resident of Village Gunnowal, Tehsil and District Amritsar (respondent); who, furnished indemnity bond dated 21.6.2007, for sum of Rs.2.5 lacs and his surety, Jaswant Singh son of Tara Singh, resident of village Banian, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar are, hereby, directed to make payment of Rs.1,93,635/- to applicant-Dilbagh Singh on or before 27.7.2007.” 4. Joginder Singh challenged the said order by filing C.R.No.6368 of 2010 before this Court, which was decided vide Annexure P8, operative part of which reads as under:- “I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal is persona designata and has to devise its procedure for doing complete justice between the parties. The amount of compensation was payable to Dilbagh Singh but was disbursed to the petitioner as an attorney of Dilbagh Singh. The petitioner could not receive and apprortionate the amount of compensation for his benefit. He was bound to disburse the entire amount of compensation to the principal, i.e., Dilbagh Singh. Having failed to do so, learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in directing the payment to be made to the claimant as the amount of compensation. In view of the said fact, I do not find any case is made out for interference in exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed.” 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, application was moved by Dilbagh Singh for recovery of the amount from Joginder Singh as well as his surety, i.e., the present petitioner. Warrant of attachment of property of Joginder Singh was issued by learned District Judge. Thereafter on the request of Dilbagh Singh, warrant of attachment of property of present petitioner-surety was also issued vide order dated 7.10.2010, Annexure P11, as notice issued to the petitioner received with the report of refusal. 6. Warrant of attachment of property of Joginder Singh was issued by learned District Judge. Thereafter on the request of Dilbagh Singh, warrant of attachment of property of present petitioner-surety was also issued vide order dated 7.10.2010, Annexure P11, as notice issued to the petitioner received with the report of refusal. 6. Admittedly, the amount was released to Joginder Singh on the surety of present petitioner, as per order of this Court. Hence, he is equally liable to make payment as per the surety bond furnished by him. Hence, warrant of attachment of property of Joginder Singh as well as present petitioner-surety was also issued by learned District Judge. Attachment was effected and hence, vide impugned order Annexure P12, property was ordered to be put to auction. 7. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount can be realised from the property of Joginder Singh, which already stands attached and hence, there was no need of attaching and putting on sale the property of present petitioner-surety. 8. However, the said plea cannot be accepted. The amount was released to Joginder Singh on the surety of present petitioner. Hence, Dilbagh Singh is entitled to get the amount recovered by sale of the property of the petitioner as well as of Joginder Singh. 9. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 10. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” 11. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ------------