Rajesh Kumar vs Smt. Sakun Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 13960 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                               ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              MISC. PETITION No. 4536 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAJESH KUMAR S/O PURANLAL, AGED ABOUT 40
                           YEAR S , R/O WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SAKET MALIK - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    SMT. SAKUN BAI W/O KHUB SINGH PATEL, AGED
                                 ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BHUGWARA, P.S. AND
                                 TEHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    KHUB SINGH PATEL S/O LATE CHIDAMI LAL
                                 PATEL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O BHUGWARA
                                 P.S. AND TEHSIL KARELI DISTRICT (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    KU.POOJA PATEL D/O KHUB SINGH PATEL, AGED
                                 ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/O BHUGWARA, P.S. AND
                                 TEHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    ICICI GENERAL COMPANY LIMITED R/O BESIDES
                                 AYUSHMAN     HOSPITAL   RUSSEL    CHOWK
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 8/29/2023 2:20:49 PM

23.06.2023 contained in Annexure P/2 passed by the Executing Court in EX MJC 1/2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an Ex-parte award dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is being executed by the Executing Court. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that an award dated 02.09.2016 was passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jabalpur and the same was transferred to the Executing Court. It is further contended by the counsel that an objection was raised by the present petitioner as regards the maintainability of the Executing Court on the ground that the Executing Court was not

empowered to execute the decree. It was further informed that an application for setting aside Ex-parte award was also filed and therefore, request was made to keep the execution proceedings abeyance and also to dismiss the proceedings as were not maintainable.

3. The said objection of the petitioner has been turned down vide order dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure P/2). It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is unsustainable in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Sarmaniya Bai wd/o Probhoo Lal and Others vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam and Others reported in 1990 MPLJ 387. Thus, counsel submits that in view of the judgment in Sarmaniya Bai (supra), the Claim Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to enforce the award and accordingly, the same could not have been transferred to the Executing Court. It is contended by the counsel that an application for setting aside Ex-parte award has been filed vide M.J.C.No.390/2022, therefore, the Executing Court should have precluded itself from proceedings with the execution and in support of his contention, counsel Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 8/29/2023 2:20:49 PM

has also placed reliance on the Section 175 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which stipulates bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

4. No other point is pressed by the petitioner.

5. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

6. Firstly, the petitioner has not brought on record the copy of objection and also not brought on record the order by which the award dated 02.09.2016 contained in Annexure P/1 was transferred to the Executing Court for the purpose of execution. The petitioner has also not brought on record the status of MJC No.390/2022. The Executing Court while considering the petitioner's objection has observed in the order that the case has been received by the Executing Court upon transfer. It is further observed by the Executing Court that though it was intimated by the petitioner/judgment debtor that MJC No.390/2022 was listed for hearing on 14.12.2022, but no stay order was produced before the Executing Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the findings as arrived at by the Executing Court reflect that the objection of the petitioner has been dealt with properly by the Executing Court. Therefore, the Executing Court did not commit any error while passing the impugned order and the same does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.

8. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is factually distinguishable.

9. Accordingly, having found no substance in the present petition, this petition stands dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 8/29/2023 2:20:49 PM

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 8/29/2023 2:20:49 PM