BANK OF BARODA Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by the District Court dismissing an application for grant of injunction against auction of a truck by the Forest Officer. The appellant-bank has brought a suit against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for recovery of a loan advanced to them. The loan was secured by hypothecation of a truck bearing No. MPN 5434. During the pendency of the suit, the said truck was seized by the Range Forest Officer in Snimoga District of Karnataka State, for violation of forest laws. On this an application was movad by the plaintiff-bank in the present suit for attachment before judgment of the truck. A notice of this application was sent to the Deputy Conservator of Forests concerned and he filed an objection. After hearing the parties, an order for attachment before judgment was granted and the court ordered that the vehicle should not be released as it was under attachment. The Forest Officer was added as a party in the suit. Thereafter, orders for confiscation of the truck were passed and apprehending the sale of the truck, the plaintiff again applied for an order against sale or disposal of the truck. This application was dismissed. Against that order the plaintiff-bank has come up in appeal. The appeal is clearly misconceived. Actually, the entire procedure adopted by the plaintiff-bank is basically wrong. Hypothecation of the truck to the bank does not mean that the owner of the truck or the person responsible for Us running is absolved of the liabilities under any other law. If the truck is utilised for transporting the contraband and is rendered liable for confiscation, it is no defence that it was hypothecated to a nationalised bank. The officers of the Forest Department had nothing to do with the transaction the plaintiff-bank had with the other respondents. If the truck is found to be liable to be confiscated under law, the officers of Forest Department are within their rights to confiscate the same. In such a case, the plaintiff-bank would lose its security but this cannot be helped. There is no force in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.