Escorts Finance Ltd. vs Manubhai Labhubhai Parmar And ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1031 Del

JUDGMENT

H.R. Malhotra J.

1. This is an application made by respondent No.1 seeking vacation of order passed by this Court on 8th May,2002 whereby a Court Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the four Loaders it being a subject matter of Hire Purchase Agreement as the respondents failed to pay the Installments due from them and therefore the Court had found prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and ordered as such.

2. It is stated in the application that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the Hire Purchase Agreement was executed at Ahmedabad and the respondents also reside in the State of Gujarat. It is admitted in the application that the respondent had made an application to the petitioner for obtaining loan of the value of Rs. 20 lacs for 4 Loaders and Dozers and pursuant to that a consent letter was given by the petitioner to the respondent that the loan of Rs. 19 lacs will be sanctioned in favor of the respondent. It is further admitted in the application that respondent No.1 made due compliance of all formalities and supply of necessary documents for hypothecating the four Loaders and Dozers. It is however stated that the petitioner obtained signatures of respondent No. 1 on four printed books in English language without filling any information including the details and without explaining to the respondent No. 1 the contents thereof and therefore it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had taken undue advantage of the illiteracy of respondent No. 1. It is further stated in the application that respondents had received delivery of only 3 Loaders and not four as alleged by the petitioner. What else is stated in this application that the petitioner forged the signatures of respondent No.2 in the Hire Purchase Agreement. According to the respondents, respondent No.2 being totally illiterate could only mark the thumb impression and not the signatures.

3. Petitioner filed reply to this application reiterating what was stated by him in the petition and the corresponding injunction application and repudiating the allegations made in the application of respondent No.1.

4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties on this application and also taken through the record. It is admitted fact that the respondent had paid certain amount of Installments. This fact itself indicates that Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent and pursuant thereto the respondent had made payments as indicated in the pleadings.

5. As regards the allegation of the respondent that their signatures were obtained on blank papers, this aspect shall have to be looked into when parties are put to trial. Even otherwise respondent No.1 having admitted the fact that delivery of 3 Loaders was made to the respondent and not four fortify the fact that there did exist Hire Purchase Agreement between the parties. At this juncture the Court has only to see if there is prima facie case appearing in favor of the petitioner and balance of convenience also tilt in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent. These two essential ingredients finds favor with the petitioner and therefore no ground exist for vacating the order dated 8th May,2002 there being no material placed on record which disentitle them ad interim relief. There is no merit in this application and the same deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed as such.