NOORDEEN Vs. MANJU CHAHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of a Motor Accident Claim Award, the appellant stood surety for the Judgment Debtor (JD) regarding payment of compensation to respondent No.1 The JD defaulted in paying the compensation amount and hence warrants of attachment dated 20.12.2016, apropos the surety's property, were issued by the Executing Court in Execution Petition No. 47/15. This warrant has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to issue orders apropos execution of the same through the Executing Court, instead if at all required, the warrant ought to have been issued through District Judge, Alwar, Rajasthan where the property is situate. He relies upon Rules 31 and 32 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008, which read as under:-

(2.) The learned counsel also relies upon provisions of sections 39 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code'), which read as under:-

(3.) Mr. Pankaj Kumar Deval, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1/beneficiary of the Award submits that the surety has no locus because the Award is against him and at best, if anybody could have any grievance, it would be the JD and the petitioner is a party to the case.