JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 24.04.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar in Execution No.11 of 2009 titled as Narinder Kaur and others v. Harpreet Singh and others, vide which objections dated 24.04.2010 filed by the petitioner-Objector were dismissed and learned Executing Court has ordered to sell the property i.e. bus bearing registration No. PB-13-G-9855. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, bus bearing registration No.PB-13-G-9855 was involved in an accident being driven by Malkiat Singh i.e. respondent No.7 and registered owner of the bus on the date of accident i.e. 23.01.2008 was Harpreet Singh, respondent No.6. In the said accident Balwinder Singh @Binder died on account of injuries received in the accident. Claim petition was filed by widow, minor children and mother of deceased i.e. respondents No.1 to 5 for grant of compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading driver, registered owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle as parties. The award was passed in favour of respondents No.1 to 5 and against Harpreet Singh and Malkiat Singh i.e. registered owner and driver, respectively of the offending vehicle. Harpreet Singh i.e. registered owner also filed appeal before this Court, which was got dismissed as withdrawn vide Annexure P2. Respondents No.1 to 5 filed application for execution of the said award passed in their favour and against driver and registered owner of the bus involved in the accident. During the said execution proceedings, the bus which was involved in the accident was attached. 4. Objections were filed by the present petitioner that he had purchased the said bus much before the said accident and however, registration of the bus was not changed in his name as the papers were pending before the registration authority and hence, it is contended that the bus which was owned by him on the date of accident cannot be attached in this execution. Objections of the petitioner were dismissed by learned Executing Court by passing the impugned order, Annexure P6, which reads as under:- “The Objector, Joginder Singh, filed the objections on the grounds that the bus in question, was purchased by Joginder Singh from Harpreet Singh and as such now Joginder Singh, is the owner of the bus in question. He filed copy of the RC of the bus. He submitted that bus in question has been wrongly attached by the court, as Harpreet Singh, is not owner of the bus in question. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/DH and learned counsel for the objector and have minutely gone through the record, particularly the RC of the bus in question. Copy of the RC of the bus in question, produced by the objector himself fully proves that bus in question, was in the name of Harpreet Singh, JD. The MACT award was passed against Harpreet Singh, on 21.01.2009 and the bus was transferred by Harpreet Singh, JD in the name of Joginder Singh, applicant, on 06.05.2009 i.e. after passing of the award, fully knowing that the award has been passed against Harpreet Singh, so, this transfer has been made by Harpreet Singh in the name of Joginder Singh, only just to evade his liability to pay the amount of award to the claimants. So, these objections, filed by objector, Joginder Singh, are hereby, dismissed, as the same are nothing but abuse of process of law. Applicant, filed notice u/s 21 rule 66 CPC. Respondent, is ex-parte. Therefore, property of JD, Harpreet Singh attached, in this case, be put to sale and warrant of sale be issued as follows: Notice : 07.05.2010 Munadi : 28.05.2010 Sale : 11.06.2010 Report : 17.07.2010" 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is third party as he was not impleaded as party in the claim petition though he had already purchased the said bus involved in the accident and hence, it is contended that the bus which is his property cannot be attached in execution of the award which was not passed against him. 6. 6. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 – Decree Holders that present petitioner was not the registered owner of the bus at the time of accident and that rather he and previous owner are colluding with each other. It is further contended that the claim petition was filed against driver and registered owner of the offending bus and that the registered owner never disclosed that he had already sold the bus to the present petitioner and hence, it is contended that it cannot be said that the bus which is proved to have been involved in the accident, cannot be attached for recovering the amount of compensation. It has also been contended that the registered ownership of the bus has been changed in the name of present petitioner vide Annexure P8 on 06.05.2009 i.e. much after filing of this award against the earlier registered owner of this bus. 7. These facts have not been disputed. Hence, merely on the ground that the papers for change of ownership were allegedly submitted by the present petitioner before the registration authority prior to the occurrence of the accident, it cannot be said that he was a necessary party or that the bus which was involved in accident cannot be attached or sold for recovery of amount of award passed in favour of respondents No.1 to 5-claimants. It seems that present petitioner and the earlier registered owner have colluded with each other just to deprive the claimants the right to recover the amount of the award by attachment and sale of the bus involved in the accident. The registered owner had also filed appeal before this Court against the award which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was never filed by him. He also never disclosed that he had sold the bus, in dispute, to the present petitioner. Claimants could make the present petitioner as party in the claim petition, only if this fact, which was allegedly in the notice of previous owner, would have been disclosed to them. 8. He also never disclosed that he had sold the bus, in dispute, to the present petitioner. Claimants could make the present petitioner as party in the claim petition, only if this fact, which was allegedly in the notice of previous owner, would have been disclosed to them. 8. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Amritsar in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ———————