GANESH PANDA Vs. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SRI PRAKASH CHANDRA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS OCRMC has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 971 for holding the Opposite Party guilty of 'civil contempt' and punishing him for alleged violation and deliberate disobedience by him of order passed by this Court on March 11, 1998 in Civil Revision No. 333 of 1997.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated are as follows: In the year 1993 the Petitioner entered into a contract with the Opposite Party for purchasing a Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration number OLR -07 -A -3301 to be financed by the latter. After payment of the price delivery of the vehicle was given to the Petitioner. In consonance with the terms of contract the Opposite Party paid a portion of the price of the vehicle and the rest was paid by the Petitioner.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court the Petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1997.The Misc. Appeal was dismissed on September 18,1997. The Petitioner thereafter filed Civil Revision No. 333 of 1997 before this Court but in the meanwhile, it is alleged, the Opposite Party forcibly seized the vehicle. After hearing the Hon'ble Judge who disposed of Civil Revision by Order Dated 11 -3 -1998 inter alia observed as follows: I consider that this is a fit case where the suit should be expeditiously disposed of preferably by end of June, 1998 under intimation to this Court. If written statement has not been filed by the Opposite Parties, the same shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today and thereafter the Trial Court shall proceed to hear the matter on merit in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned orders or in the present order. If the Trial Court feels it necessary, it can call for the affidavits filed in this Court by the respective parties. Since the vehicle has already been seized, Opposite Party Nos. 1 is directed to maintain the vehicle in the same condition in which it was at the time of seizure and not to transfer the same to any person till disposal of the suit. While matter stood thus, the Title Suit was decreed preliminary with costs by Judgment dated 24th August, 1996. The decree stated thus:.The Defendants are hereby directed jointly and severally to settle the accounts regarding the purchase of the vehicle with the Plaintiff and to return the vehicle to the Plaintiff in the same condition which it was at the time of seizure they had taken from the possession of the plff. Failing to which plff Is at liberty'to recover the said vehicle from the possession of the Defendants under the process of law and to realise all the money from the Defendants No. 1 and 3.