S M KHASIM VALI Vs. SHIVAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS who obtained awards under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 had during execution proceedings, sought attachment of the properties belonging to the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident. Petitioner, a third party, filed his counter in the E. Ps contending that some of the properties sought to be attached do not belong to him and belong to Wakf, and as he is not the J. Dr his properties cannot be attached. By the order under revision, the said objections were overruled. Hence these revisions.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that taking advantage of the fact that the name of the revision petitioner and the name of one of the J. Drs is the same, respondent is trying to sell the properties belonging to the revision petitioner and so the revision petitioner opposed the execution petitions, but the Tribunal without appreciating the contentions raised, erroneously overruled the objections of the revision petitioner.