GHANSHYAM PYARE Vs. ALIM QURESHI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant No. 1 who has suffered an order of injunction passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 47 -A of 1989, dated 3.10.1989, has filed the present appeal under order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the controversy are that truck No. CIJ 8035 which is registered in the names of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was sold by their father (respondents No. 3) Kallu Qureshi in favour of the present appellant. Possession of the said truck was given by Kallu Qureshi to the present appellant, after receiving consideration of Rs. 60,000/ -. Respondent No. 3 had also executed a sale letter in favour of the present appellant. The present appellant lodged report at the Police Station on 25.4.1989, standing therein that the truck has been stolen. On the said report, the truck was seized by the Gorakhpur Police. After seizure of the truck, respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs applied for Supurdnama to take the truck in their possession. After hearing the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were represented by their lather (respondent No. 3), the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the truck be delivered to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The said order was challenged by the present appellant before the Sessions Court and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, setting aside the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1989, by his order dated 11.5.1989 ordered in favour of the present appellant. Respondents No. 1 and 2, through their guardian lather (respondent No. 3), filed a criminal revision No. 330 of 1989 before this Court, which was dismissed on 31.3.1989. It was held that the present appellant is entitled to get possession of the truck. This Court, while dismissing the revision ordered that if the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are aggrieved by the acts of their father, they can approach the Civil Court for an appropriate declaration of their title over the vehicle and may also file a criminal complaint against the present appellant for forging the said sale letter. However, the order for delivery of possession to the present appellant was maintained.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned trial Court held that as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the truck, equity lies in their favour, holding that they have a prima facie case being registered owners and would suffer an irreparable injury if injunction is not granted in their favour, granted an injunction and directed that till the disposal of the suit, the present appellant should not interfere with the possession of the truck personally of through any body. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal: Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the truck Was sold by respondent No. 3 in his capacity as father of the minors, respondent No. 3 has taken a sum of Rs. 60.000/ - from the appellant, the truck was seized at the instance of the present appellant, there is no order in favour of the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 permitting them to continue with the possession of the truck and the order under which they took possession of the truck having been dislodged they cannot continue to remain in possession of the truck. It was also submitted that the learned trial Court was unnecessarily impressed by the fact that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are registered owners. It was contended that as the truck was given in Supurdgi of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the criminal Court and immediately after the said order was set aside, as per the Supurdgi, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 must surrender the truck to the criminal Court and the truck should be delivered to the present appellant as he is found entitled not only by the Sessions Court but even by this Court. None appeared to oppose the present appeal.