Madras High Court
S.V.S.Auto Investments vs M.Ravi on 1 December, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.2769 of 2016
S.V.S.Auto Investments,
Rep. by Managing Director,
S.Sasikumar, No.12, V.O.C. Street,
Gudiyatham Town,
Vellore District. .. Petitioner
(Cause title amended vide order of this
Court dated 15.11.2021 made in
C.M.P. No.18539 of 2021 in
C.R.P.(NPD).No. 550 of 2016)
Vs.
M.Ravi .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order dated 08.01.2016 made in
I.A.No.208 of 2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.G.Ramakkannan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Rajagopal
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
ORDER
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order
dated 08.01.2016 made in I.A.No.208 of 2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file
of the Sub Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2.The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Sub
Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. The respondent is 1st defendant in the
said suit. The petitioner filed the said suit against the respondent and one
Suresh Kumar as 2nd defendant for recovery of money due on Hire Purchase
Agreement executed by the respondent and 2nd defendant as guarantor to the
petitioner firm on 26.03.2008. The respondent has deposited the amount of
Rs.1,13,540/-. The suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated
31.08.2009 for Court cost and future interest. Pending suit, JCB vehicle
which was hypothecated by the respondent was ceased by the petitioner
through Advocate Commissioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent
by force took away the vehicle from the Advocate Commissioner and criminal
case has been lodged against the respondent and Court has returned the
vehicle to the petitioner. After the decree, the respondent filed present
application for a direction to the petitioner to return the vehicle to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
respondent on receipt of amount legally due to the petitioner. According to the
respondent, he is ready to pay the amount legally due to the petitioner and the
vehicle may be returned to him. The petitioner filed counter affidavit stating
that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as suit is not
pending. Even in the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.1191 & 1192
of 2009, this Court held that if the petitioner has got any such right in the
Civil Court, he can file a petition. The petitioner has no right to file a petition
and application is not maintainable. The Hire Purchase Agreement executed
by the respondent was already terminated and there is no relationship
between the petitioner and respondent and prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.208
of 2010.
3.Before the learned Judge, the respondent did not let in any oral and
documentary evidence. The petitioner did not let in any oral evidence but
marked 6 documents as Exs.R1 to R6. Interim report of the Advocate
Commissioner was marked as Exs.C1 & C2.
4.The learned Judge allowed the I.A., holding that before this Court, a
full satisfaction memo was recorded in Crl.R.C.Nos.1191 & 1192 of 2009 as
respondent has paid entire due amount and petitioner has not objected for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
recording the said memo of full satisfaction before this Court.
5.Against the said order dated 08.01.2016 made in I.A.No.208 of 2010,
the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the entire materials
on record.
7.From the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the present
application, it is seen that the respondent and 2 nd defendant has sought for
return of JCB vehicle on paying all the amounts legally payable by the
respondent to the petitioner. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, the
respondent, who is the petitioner in the said I.A.No.208 of 2010 has stated as
follows:
“I am ready to pay the amount legally due to
the respondent. Hence, I am filing this application
for return of vehicle which is in the possession of
the respondent.”
The respondent has not stated that he has paid all the amounts due and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
payable to the petitioner and full satisfaction memo was recorded before this
Court. It is seen from the order of the learned Judge that during arguments,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that a sum of
Rs.4,28,500/- is due and payable by the respondent. The learned Judge has
allowed the application as he misunderstood the order of this Court dated
29.01.2010 in Crl.R.C.Nos.1191 & 1192 of 2009. A reading of the order of
this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.1191 & 1192 of 2009 shows that no memo of full
satisfaction was recorded by this Court. On the other hand, this Court in
paragraph Nos.7 & 8, held as follows:
“ 7. The learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent / financier would submit that a
contempt petition was filed against the petitioner in
respect of the occurrence in which the vehicle was
taken out of the possession of the Advocate
Commissioner by force. The learned counsel has
produced a copy of the order passed by this Court
in Cont.P.No.150 of 2009, dated 29.06.2009
wherein the Division Bench of this Court has come
down heavily upon the petitioner and imposed a
fine of Rs.2,000/-. This would again go to fortify
the fact that the petitioner is not entitled for interim
custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the
Code. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
would submit that the petitioner has already paid
the entire amount due to the 2nd respondent /
financier and as a matter of fat, a full satisfaction
memo has also been filed before the learned Sub
Judge, Gudiyattam.
8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion,
that if the petitioner has got any such right in civil
suit, so as to get possession of the said vehicle, he
can very well approach the learned Sub judge,
Gudiyattam to get delivery of the said vehicle, for
which, neither this order nor the orders passed by
the learned Magistrate shall stand in the way of the
Sub Judge to pass appropriate orders in the matter.
If the learned Subordinate Judge passes an order
delivering the vehicle to the petitioner, on taking
delivery, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle
before the learned Magistrate and forthwith the
Magistrate shall return the same to the petitioner
on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One lakh only). Thereafter, the petitioner shall
produce the vehicle before the Magistrate as and
when required for the purpose of trial and he shall
not encumber or sell or alter the nature of the
vehicle in any manner without prior permission of
the learned Magistrate.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
8.A reading of the above paragraphs clearly shows that no full
satisfaction memo was recorded by this Court. On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent has stated that the respondent has paid
the entire amount due and full satisfaction memo has been filed before the
Sub Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. In view of the above submission of
the learned counsel for respondent and above fact, the learned Judge has
committed an error in allowing the I.A.No.208 of 2010 as he misunderstood
the order of this Court passed in Crl.R.C.Nos.1191 & 1192 of 2009. In view
of the same, the impugned order of the learned Judge dated 08.01.2016 in
I.A.No.208 of 2010 is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. From the
affidavit filed in support of the present application, it is seen that the
respondent has stated that he is willing to pay the amount legally due to the
petitioner. It is open to the respondent to pay the amount due to the petitioner
as per the decree and get back the vehicle.
9.With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
01.12.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
To
The learned Subordinate Judge,
Gudiyatham,
Vellore District.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.550 of 2016
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
