Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shelly Coop. Transport Society Ltd. vs Jitender Singh on 21 December, 2000
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT
N.C. Khichi, J,
1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 27.5.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby Crl. Revision No. 12 of 1999 filed by respondent Jitender Singh was accepted and the order dated March 22, 1999 under which Shelly Co-op. Transport Society Ltd. through Dharm Singh was allowed to receive the possession of the bus in question on behalf of Jitender Singh was set aside.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that a bus bearing Registration No. HR-46/6284 was taken in possession by the police from the custody of Jitender Singh respondent for violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The request for release of the bus on superdari made by Jitender Singh was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide order dated February 2, 1999 on furnishing superdagi-nama in the sum of rupees eight lacs. However, Dharam Singh preferred a revision petition against the decision of learned CJM, Sonepat which was disposed of by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat. It was observed that the learned CJM was required to look into the matter and release the vehicle in favour of true owner as was ordered by him. Thus, the Shelly Co-op. Transport Society Ltd. prayed through ist Vice President Sh. Dharam Singh for obtaining the custody of the bus before the learned CJM, Sonepat. The claim of the Transport Company found favour with the learned CJM, Sonepat who modified his earlier order dated 22.9.99 and permitted Dharam Singh, the Vice President of Society to receive the vehicle in question on superdari. Against this order of learned CJM, Jitender Singh respondent-herein preferred an revision.
3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 27.5.1999 allowed the revision of Jitender respondent and order dated 22.3.1999 passed by the learned CJM was set aside. It was ordered that the vehicle in question bearing registration No. HR-46/6284 shall be released on superdari in favour of Jitender Singh respondent herein on his furnishing superdginama in the sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs to the entire satisfaction of the learned CJM, Sonepal. It is this order dated 27.5.1999, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the respondent is not the exclusive or sole owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle stood registered in the name of petitioner society as such the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in releasing the bus in question on superdari to the respondent. According to him the respondent took the possession of the vehicle from the Society forcibly and still the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has allowed the possession of the vehicle in his favour. He has further submitted that the petitioner society being the owner of the vehicle has a prima facie good case in its favour. The Society will suffer an irreparable loss as it will not able to discharge the liability of the bank loan which stood in the name of the Society.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the vehicle was in lawful possession of the respondent pursuant to an agreement and he was driving the vehicle at the time of its seizure by the police under the Motor Vehicles Act, as such the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat was fully justified to pass the impugned order.
7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force and substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the bus in question is owned by the Society of which Jitender Singh respondent is also one of the members. The respondent came into possession of the bus in question of the basis of compromise dated 18.9.1998 arrived at between the members of the petitioner society whereby he was permitted to ply the bus in accordance with the terms of the agreement. II is also on record that the respondent in pursuance of the compromise dated 18.9.1998 had paid bank loan to the tune of Rs. 1,88,000/- and had also returned the security of the members of the Society. In accordance with the other compromise arrived at between the society and the respondent Jitender Singh, he had agreed to pay Rs. 1,55,000/- from 23.10.1998 till 23.12.1990 and in case he failed to pay the amount he was liable to hand over the bus to the members of the Society namely Dinesh etc. Since the respondent was in authorised possession of the bus in question and he had been plying the same under compromise as such he was rightly given superdari by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The bus was admittedly taken into possession by the police from his custody. Jitender Singh has paid a substantial amount from his pocket on behalf of the society and he was in lawful possession of the vehicle in question. As such he was entitled to the custody of the bus on superdari.
8. In view of the facts and other circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order so as to call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed.
9. Revision dismissed.