UMA SHANKAR GOPALKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

(2.) FROM the office report it appears that though the Opposite Party No. 2 has received the notice' issued to him and has filed his appearance through lawyer, but in spite of repeated calls, both today as also on the last date, no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to offer any contest.

(3.) THE admitted facts of the case as per the complaint of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that the petitioner happens to be a financier. The Opposite Party No. 2 had obtained a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from the petitioner for the purchase of a Trailer. The Trailer was purchased with the amount borrowed from the petitioner and the same was registered in the State of Haryana. A hire -purchase agreement was drawn up and in terms of the agreement, the complainant/borrower was required to repay the loan amount in equal monthly installments. The documents pertaining to the hire -purchase agreement was admittedly executed by the complainant in favour of the financier.