OM PARKASH Vs. SURENDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order rejecting a plea against the further process in execution by one of the judgment-debtors, who was admittedly a registered owner of the vehicle and who was made liable under an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court has allowed for further process in execution by attachment of his properties and the contention made by the judgment-debtor before this Court is that the Execution Court may be directed to hear his objections that the property of the other judgment-debtor may also be directed to be proceeded with. According to him, he had actually sold the vehicle at the time of accident, but he was, however, made liable by the fact that he was a registered owner. Admittedly, the subsequent purchaser from him is also a party and there is a joint decree casting liability on both the registered owner as well as the purchaser. A decree-holder is entitled to enforce the claim against anyone of the defendants and leave it to the parties to fight amongst themselves to settle issue of contribution to the extent to which the liability could arise. In this case, if the contention that the property was sold by him and the vehicle is in the custody of the purchaser, the right of enforcement for recovery of the entire amount shall avail to one of the judgment-debtors after satisfying the decree. The Executing Court need not fetter itself to divide the liability even at the stage of execution of the decree sought at the instance of the decree-holder. If it was, therefore, allowing the execution process to continue against anyone of the defendants, although attachment had been caused both as regards the properties of each one of the judgment-debtors, it is only perfectly legitimate that the Executing Court did not allow for an objection of the petitioner to prevail. His plea is that the motor vehicle should be attached and recoveries to be made for satisfying a portion of the award cannot be entertained, for, as I have observed that the decree-holder is entitled to enforce the award against anyone of them.

(2.) If the contention of the petitioner is that he is not liable for the whole money and he is entitled to contribution from the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle which was the offending vehicle that caused the accident, the attachment effected in respect of the vehicle, shall subsist and shall not be vacated on the satisfaction of the decree by realizing the amount by attachment and the sale of the properties of the petitioner herein. The petitioner will have a right to adopt a third party procedure set out under Order VIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code and seeks for recoveries against the co-obligant treating himself as a plaintiff/decree-holder and obtain recoveries against the co-obligant-as judgment-debtor in the manner provided under the relevant provisions, referred to above. The civil revision is dismissed with the above observations.