1 2025:CGHC:46106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 899 of 2025 1. Smt. Savita Agrawal W/o Late Kishore Kumar Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Jain Mandir Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. 2. Sarthak Agrawal S/o Late Kishore Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Jain Mandir Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Pradeep Singh S/o Late Sovind Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bus Khali, P.S. Bijuri Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur M.P. 2. Smt. Kusumvati D/o Late Manjhali @ Sumitra, W/o Laxman Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Letriya Tola Post Khrua Tahsil And P.S. Jaitpur District Sahdol (M.P.) 3. Smt. Radha D/o Late Manjhali @ Sumitra, W/o Chainu Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Chhapra Tola, P.S. Keshwahi, Tahsil Jaitpur, District Sahdol (M.P.) Wrongly Mentioned As Chhapra Ola. 4. Smt. Indravati D/o Late Manjhali @ Sumitra, W/o Kamal Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Beliya Fatak, P.S. Bijuri, Tahsil Kotma, District Anukppur (M.P.) Wrongly Mentioned As District Sahdol Anuppur M.P. 5. Smt. Somvati @ Guddi D/o Late Manjhali @ Sumitra, W/o Dindayal Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Tahsil Jaitpur District Sahdol M.P. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.10 19:02:17 +0530 2 6. Baldev Ram Mourya S/o Ramdahi Mourya R/o Ward No. 4, Near Shriram Petrol Pump, Ring Road Manendragarh District M.C.B. (C.G.) 7. Kaushal Agrawal S/o Late Kishore Kumar Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Jain Mandir Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 10-09-2025 1) Petitioners have filed this petition assailing the orders passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in MACT Execution Case No. 01/2025 dated 22.07.2025 and 25.06.2025. 2) Facts of the present case are that an award under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was passed by the learned Tribunal against M/s Kishore Kumar Agrawal–through its proprieter–Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Rajkumar Yadav and Baldev Ram Mourya in MACC No. 100004/2012 on 08.12.2021. Learned Tribunal directed non- applicants of that case to pay a sum of Rs. 4,79,800/- with interest @ 6% and they were held liable jointly and severally. Thereafter, an execution case has been filed by the claimants which is pending consideration. It is pleaded that during pendency of execution case, the proprietor of M/s Kishore Kumar Agrawal, namely, Kishore Kumar Agrawal alias Bullu Seth died and his 3 legal representatives (petitioners herein) were brought on record. Learned Tribunal vide orders dated 22.07.2025 and 25.06.2025 has directed the petitioners to deposit 50% award amount and also issued attachment warrant. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Executing Court without complying with the provisions of Section 50 of CPC, issued an attachment warrant against the petitioners and also directed them to deposit 50% of the award amount. He further submits that learned Executing Court ought to have followed the provisions contained in Section 50 of CPC before fastening liability on petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Lt. Kishore Kumar Agrawal. He prays to set aside the orders dated 22.07.2025 and 25.06.2025. 4) Heard. 5) Section 50 of CPC reads as under :- 50. Legal representative. – (1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit. Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that 4 legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor would be liable only to the extent of the property which has come to their hands and has not been duly disposed of. The Executing Court may compel such legal representatives to produce accounts of property, if it thinks fit. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that learned Executing Court straightaway directed the petitioners to deposit 50% of the award amount and also issued attachment warrant whereas such action is in contravention to the provisions of Section 50 of CPC. 7) Accordingly, the orders dated 22.07.2025 and 25.06.2025 are hereby set aside and learned Executing Court is directed to comply with the provisions contained in Section 50 of CPC before proceeding with the matter. 8) In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a