YAPARTI SAMBAIAH Vs. JASTI BASAVAPURNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of two applications one for the appointment of a Commissioner to seize the lorry A. D. B. 162 and produce the same into Court and the other one filed under Section 151. Civil P. C. to order delivery of the lorry to the petitioner herein. The facts giving rise to these revisions are the following:--

(2.) The respondent herein filed the suit O. S. 3 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenali for specific performance of an agreement dated 12-11-1973 and for possession of the lorry A. D. B. 162. According to her case, she purchased the lorry from the petitioner herein by an agreement dated 12-11-1973 after paying an advance sum of Rs. lO,OOO.00 for a sum of Rs. 36,700.00. The possession of the lorry was delivered to her and she became the owner thereof. According to the conditions of the agreement the petitioner herein had to clear a debt due on the lorry to a creditor at Bhimavaram and after obtaining T. P. permit in his name he should inform the plaintiff when she should oav Rs. 20,000.00 to the defendant by arranging a pledge of the lorry with any finance corporation. The balance of the amount had to be paid on or before 12-2-1974. The plaintiff arranged for the finance of Rs. 20,000.00 but the defendant, contrary to the terms of the agreement forcibly took away the said lorry from the possession of the plaintiff on 29-12-1973. when it was placed opposite to her house. She gave a report to the police, who did not take any action. As the defendant came unauthorisedly into possession of the said lorry end was plying the same the present suit was-brought for specific performance of the agreement and for possession of the said lorry. Plaintiff stated that she was ready and willing to perform the terms of the agreement dated 12-11-1973. She also claimed in the alternative, damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000.00 which consisted of return of the advance sum of Rupees 10,OOO/- paid by her to the defendant and Rs. 10,000.00 towards loss suffered by her on account of the default committed by the defendant in performing the agreement.

(3.) Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application I. A. 80/74 for the appointment of a Commissioner to seize the lorry and produce it into Court. In the affidavit filed in support of that application she stated that if the defendant, who has unauthorisedly taken away the lorry from her possession and is running it without authority, is allowed to continue in possession of the same he would spoil the lorry and cause damage to it by removing valuable parts of the same. On the said application, which was filed on 21-1-1974 along with the suit, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an ex parte order appointing Sri Y. S. K. Prasad, Advocate Tenali as a Commissioner for seizing the said lorry wherever it was and for producing the same into Court. In accordance with the warrant issued by the Court the said Commissioner seized the lorry and produced the same into Court along with his report dated 31-1-1974.