PURCHASER CLAIM FOR RETURN OF VEHICLE UNDER AN AGREEMENT OF SALE = the petitioner is not aware of the second respondent’s involvement in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Narketpally P.S. and as the petitioner parted with considerable amount under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.2012, if the vehicle is allowed to be in custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its value being depreciated which would case great prejudice to the petitioner.= The second respondent did not choose to enter appearance to dispute the agreement of sale, dated 21.11.2012, under which the petitioner purchased the crime lorry. Therefore, if the lorry is allowed to be in custody of the police and in the event of its value being depreciated, it is the petitioner who is going to sustain substantial loss. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to order for release of the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal; 2. The petitioner shall undertake to produce the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 as and when required by the trial Court; 3. The petitioner shall not alienate the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 or alter its physical features. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.


CRLRC 168 / 2013

CRLRCSR 2460 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
A.LAXMAIAH  VSTHE STATE OF A.P.
PET.ADV. : RAVINDERRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  NALGONDA
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.168 of 2013
ORDER:
This revision is directed against the order dated 04.01.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class dismissed the petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C seeking return of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060.
2.       The petitioner claims to be the owner of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060, having purchased the same under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.2012 from the second respondent-D.Praveen Kumar Goud.  The said lorry came to be seized in Crime No.222 of 2012 of Nakrekal Police Station on the ground that sand is being transported without obtaining valid permission.  The petitioner moved Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2012 under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal seeking for release of the vehicle for interim custody.  The learned Magistrate, having taken note of the fact that the second respondent, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, is involved in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Narketpally P.S, refused to release the vehicle for interim custody and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 04.01.2013.  Hence this criminal revision case.
3.       Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State and perused the order impugned in the revision.
4.       It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is not aware of the second respondent’s involvement in Crime No.70 of 2012 of Narketpally P.S. and as the petitioner parted with considerable amount under an agreement of sale dated 21.11.2012, if the vehicle is allowed to be in custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its value being depreciated which would case great prejudice to the petitioner.
5.       Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State supported the order impugned in the revision.
6.       The second respondent did not choose to enter appearance to dispute the agreement of sale, dated 21.11.2012, under which the petitioner purchased the crime lorry.  Therefore, if the lorry is allowed to be in custody of the police and in the event of its value being depreciated, it is the petitioner who is going to sustain substantial loss.  In that view of the matter, I am inclined to order for release of the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the following conditions.
1.        The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal;
2.        The petitioner shall undertake to produce the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 as and when required by the trial Court;
3.        The petitioner shall not alienate the lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 5060 or alter its physical features.
7.       Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.



_____________________________

JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

01.03.2013
Vjl/Gm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515