AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.C. Naik, J.—Though styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this petition is, in fact, one under Article 227 thereof. The orders impugned are annexures 3 and 4 whereby the petitioner''s application u/s 151 of the Civil F.C. for release of the bus in question was turned down by the trial court as well as the revisioinal court.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner had entered into a hire-purchase agreement in respect of a bus with its chasis (vehicle hearing registration number ORA 2322). The total contract amount was Rs. 4, 16.930/- out of which a down payment of Rs. 33.549/- towards hire charges was made and the balance hire charges of Rs, 3,83.381/- was to he paid in thirty-five monthly instalments, as provided in the hire-purchase agreement. It is not disputed that for non-fulfilment of the term regarding payment the vehicle was seized by the finaneer. There is however, a dispute between the parties regarding the amount due under this hire-purchase agreement. In view of the seizure of the bus the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 175 of 1995 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). First Court Cuttack against opposite parties 1 and 2 for rendition of accounts, compensation and other incidental relief. Apprehending auction-sale of the vehicle by the financier, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 39. Rule. 1 and 2. C.P.C. for restraining the defendants from transferring the scized bus to any third person during the pendency of the suit and ad interim order has been passed though the final adjudication of that application is awaited.
Subsequent to the filing of the application for interim injunction, the petitioner had filed an application u/s 151 of the Civil P.C. for directing the defendants (opposite parties 1 and 2) tore lease the bus in his favour. This application was opposed by the defedtants on the ground that the plaintiff has no right to ply it without payment of Rs. 1.15.166A which is the amount due under the hire-purchase agreement as on 26-6-1995. On the other hand the plaintiffs case is that for a paltry amount of Rs. 25.380/- which is the only amount due he has been deprived of using the bus in which huge amount was invested by him, as what was supplied to him under the hire-purchase agreement was the ehasis and engine only.
The trial court after taking into consideration the dispute involved in the ease and the fact that injunction proceedings are pending in which an ad interim order has already been passed restraining the defendants from transferring the bus to any third person, came to the conclusion that this application was premature. It was also of the opinion that as to what in fact is the amount due under the hire-purchase agreement and whether all the instalments had been paid or not are yet to be adjudicated upon, lt accordingly, was of the opinion that there was no substance in the application which was dismissed on 28-8-199.) (vide Annexure 3).
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the District Judge. Cutiack in Civil Revision No. 113 of 1995 which has been dismissed on 24-4-1996 (vide Annexure 4). In his order, the District Judge has also observed that it was not within the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction to determine at that stage whether or not the seizure of the bus for non-payment of hire-purchase instalments was proper, more so in view of the fact that Clause 7 of the hire-purchase agreement reserved with the hirer a right to seize the vehicle for non-payment of instalments. He was further of the opinion that as to whether ownership has in fact passed to the plaintiff (petitioner), is also yet to be decided. He accordingly dismissed the revision as having no merit. The District Judge, however, observed that the observations made were only for the purpose of the revision petition and will not bind the trial court either during hearing of the suit or while considering the pending application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2. CPC on merits. Accordingly, the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court for relief.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for a paltry sum of Rs. 25.380/-. the bus was seized. It is his case that what was financed was only the ehasis and the engine and thereafter, the petitioner spent a huge amount of about Rs, 5.00.000)/- for building the body of the bus and as such, he is being put to a great loss by the unlawful act of the defendants (opp. parties I and 2). It is further submitted that while the bus was in use it had met with five accidents and that the amount claimed from the Insurance Company has been retained by the financier. This amount, according to the learned counsel, should also he adjusted towards the outstanding dues. He therefore, submits that the outstanding dues are only less than Rs. 25,000/- and prays that the vehicle in question may he released on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 25.380/- and furnishing an undertaking regarding the other terms.
The petitioner is opposed by opposite parties I and 2 inter alia, on the ground that it is not maintainable as the opposite Parties are neither "State" nor "any other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the petition is being treated as one under Article 227 of the Constitution, this particular objection raised by opposite parties 1 and 2 need not detain us.
The petition is also opposed on the ground that no good or sufficient ground has been made out by the petitioner for interfering with the revisional order of the District Judge in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, looking to the facts and circumstances involved in this case. It is submitted that the merits of the case cannot be gone into this petition and as to whether or not there has been a breach of the conditions of the hire-purchase agreement, as to whether or not the instalments had been paid and what is the amount due, are all factual aspects which arc subject-mailers of decision of the trial court in a suit filed by the petitioner. As a seizure is in exercise of powers under the hire-purchase agreement, it cannot be said to be illegal, unauthorised and unwarranted. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the pleadings, submits that powers under Article 227 are wide and this Court can in the instant case exercise those powers and grant relief to the petitioner.
It cannot be denied that powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arc wide and are not subject to limitations as are prescribed. say u/s 115 of the Civil P.C. It is in this view of the matter it has been held in some cases that it a case is made out this Court in exercise of powers under Article 221 can also go into the questions of fact and may also look into the evidence if the ends of justice so require. However, it will not interfere with the findings of fact unless it were absolutely perverse or not based on any material or if the conclusion arrived at by the Court subordinate is such that no reasonable person would possibly return that rinding, or in a case where there is manifest injustice. But as laid down as far back as in 1953 in D.N. Banerji Vs. P.R. Mukherjee and Others, . the powers under Article 227 though are wide, would be restricted to interference in a case of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and they should be exercised sparingly and in eases where grave injustice would be done unless it interferes. It has further been laid down in Bhutnath Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1969) 3 SCC 675 and M/s. Rajkamal Kalamandir (Pvt) Ltd: v. Indian Motion Pictures Employees Union (1965) 2 SCWR 233 that these powers under Article 227 should not be exercised by the High Court as if it was exercising appellate or revisional powers. There is also ample authority for the proposition that these powers are not to be exercised to correct error of fact or law which is not apparent on the face of record, unless such error affects the jurisdiction or involves a breach of the principles of natural justice, nor can it in exercise of powers under Article 227 reappraise the evidence. Thus, though the powers are wide, they have to be exercised within the above mentioned limitations which have been laid down by the Courts as a self-imposed discipline, for the power is to be exercised to keep the subordinate courts or tribunals within the bounds of their authority.
Having heard counsel for the panics and considering the material on record, we do not find the present to be a case which calls for our interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the panics regarding payment of instalments and amounts paid and due under the hire-purchase agreement and that this question is subjudice. It is also a fact that an application under Order 39. Rule 1 and 2. CPC filed by the petitioner plaintiff is yet to be adjudicated upon though an ad interim order has been passed restraining the defendants 1 and 2 (opp. parties I and 2) from transferring the bus in question 10 any third person pending hearing. Prima facie. the Irial court as well as the revisional court has conic to the conclusion that certain amount towards the instalments is due - according io the plaintiff, it is about Rs. 25.000/- whereas according to the defendants, it is Rs. 1.15. 166/as on 26-6-1995. Upon a consideration of all these facts, the trial court as well as the revisional court rejected the application. In our considered view, no ground exists for our interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition has therefore, to be rejected.
In the result, the writ application is dismissed. However, the observations made by us in this judgment are for the purposeof disposing of the writ application and shall not be construed to be our expression on merits of the case. As such, the Civil Suit and the injunction application filed by the plaintiff shall be disposed of by the court below on their own merits without in any way being influenced by any observation that may have been made by us in this proceeding. There shall be no order as to costs.
P.K. Mohanti, J.
I agree.