ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
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.
4. I see no ground to interfere with the order under revision because it is well known that there is no warranty of title in a Court sale. If Wakf property is being proceeded against it is for the Wakf Board to move the Tribunal for appropriate relief. Revision petitioner cannot champion the cause of Wakf Board. Third party whose properties are attached, if he feels aggrieved, has to file a petition under Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC, but he cannot, by filing a counter in the E.P, contend that inasmuch as the property intended to be proceeded against does not belong to the J.Dr the E.P. has to be dismissed. In fact counter can be filed only by the persons who are parties to the proceedings, but not by third party to the proceedings. A third party has no locus standi to oppose the E.P.
5. In fact the Tribunal was in error in entertaining the counter filed by the revision petitioner, who claims himself to be a third party. If the revision petitioner is not the J.Dr, as claimed by him, and as such his properties cannot be proceeded against, he has to take appropriate proceedings for release of the attachment over his properties but he cannot straight away file a counter in the E.P. and contest the E.P as if he were a party to the E.P.
6. Therefore, the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.
