(1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) It appears that the appellant had obtained loan and purchased the tractor which was hypothecated to the respondent. This tractor was seized on the allegation that amounts due to the bank had not been paid. The High court has held in the impugned judgment that the respondent had the right to seize the said tractor.
(3.) It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money from the appellant has been dismissed by the trial court. It is stated that appeal is pending in the High court against the said decision. Once the suit for recovery is dismissed, the question of the bank getting any right to seize the vehicle would not arise. However, inasmuch as the appeal is pending in the High court the question of enforcement of the security by the bank wilt arise only if the bank succeeds in its appeal before the High court. Till the decision of the said appeal, the appellant shall not part with the possession of the tractor. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.