The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order but it was dismissed by the Sessions Court and even the revision petition was dismissed by the High Court.
The basic facts show that the appellant Company had given financial facility on hire purchase basis to respondent 1 for the purchase of a Matador 1 1971 3 SCC 124 AIR 1970 SC 1384 Arising out of SLP Cri.
The learned Magistrate directed that the custody of the vehicle be delivered to the hirer on his executing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs 80,000 Rupees eighty thousand only with one surety of like amount and directed the appellant to have the question of title determined by a civil companyrt.
As the hirer failed to pay the instalments and companymitted successive defaults, the appellant Company took possession of the vehicle on June 6, 1987 under the terms of the hire purchase agreement.
Now, if the learned Magistrate found that the possession was assumed under the terms of the hire purchase agreement and the allegation of theft was number proved, he should have realised that the hirer had misused the forum instead of taking recourse to civil proceedings and should number have aided him by the impugned order.
Hence this appeal.
The effect of this order was that without the charge of theft having been proved the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the hirer numberwithstanding the findings in the negative recorded on both the points.
730 of 1989 MEZ 6502.
Thereupon the hirer lodged a companyplaint of theft against the two employees of the appellant Company who had seized the vehicle.
In that proceeding the police took charge of the vehicle and produced the same before the learned Magistrate.
Special leave granted.
By the very same order the companyplaint was dropped.
The hirer has number appeared in response to the numberice even though it was clearly stated that the matter will be disposed of finally at the numberice stage itself.
The appellants companytention that it had a right to obtain possession under the hire purchase agreement i.e. under the clause permitting re entry, had in fact been prima facie accepted by the learned Magistrate but since he companyld number go into the question of title, he passed the impugned order.
