Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh And Another vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Others on 31 March, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CR No.1898 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1898 of 2014
Date of Decision: 31.03.2014
Jagjit Singh and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28th January, 2014 passed in execution proceedings pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind. The petitioners before this Court are judgment debtors Nos.4 and 5. The two offending vehicles which were involved in the accident led to the death of four people. It is admitted that the motor vehicles were not insured giving rise to personal liability of owners. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed the award in favour of the widow of one of the deceased occupants of the ill fated accident. The learned Tribunal has satisfied itself that the awarded amount cannot be recovered from the respondent-J.Ds. Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in the ordinary course. The petitioners have failed to make the payment assessed against them by the Tribunal and today at the hearing also they have expressed that Mittal Manju 2014.04.02 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.1898 of 2014 -2- they are unable to satisfy the award except to make a feeble submission that the petition may be entertained by calling upon JD Nos.4 and 5 to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- at present and the rest afterward.
To my mind, such a request is not acceptable. The award was passed on 11th June, 2011 and the respondent-widow is waiting to receive the awarded amount and has been unable to do so, so far.
The only argument raised in this petition is that S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not complied with and that before ordering issue of warrants, no show cause notice was issued and detention should not have been ordered without complying with the first proviso under sub- clause (e) of S.51 of the Code. Section 51 deals with the procedure in execution and lays down the powers of the Court to enforce execution after such notice is issued to show cause then the Court could examine and re- satisfy if the JD is obstructing and delaying the execution of the decree and is likely to abscond etc. then arrest and detention can follow. This argument does not cut much ice. The petitioners were heard when the order dated 28th January, 2014 was passed. They cannot hide behind technicalities of procedure and use it to defeat execution of the award. It is also not the case that the award has been stayed or varied by a superior court and therefore, it is not a case of exercise of compassion or kindness. Compassion has also to be balanced between the JDs and the widow of the deceased. I found no counter-balance at the hearing before me.
I have no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28th January, 2014 and would dismiss the petition. However, the dismissal of this petition would not preclude the petitioners from tendering the awarded Mittal Manju 2014.04.02 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.1898 of 2014 -3- amount before the learned MACT, Jind immediately to save themselves from the rigours of the impugned order.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 31.03.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.04.02 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh