The registered owner is entitled to the custody of the vehicle until the transfer of ownership is entered in the certificate of registration.

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 13th September, 2008, passed by learned Munsiff (JMIC), Chenani in execution proceedings of the order dated 07th February, 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur in Criminal Revision. It has been stated that both impugned orders have resulted in prejudice to the petitioner, as the vehicle which has been ordered to be seized through SSP, Jammu, is in its possession. The orders impugned are illegal as the same have been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner.

2. It has further briefly stated that the orders impugned are against the facts and law, and respondent No. 1 has mis-stated the facts to regain the possession of the Vehicle Toyota Qualis bearing No. JK02W-1071 (hereinafter called as the vehicle in a criminal proceedings), after having failed in two civil suits and the same is illegal/nonest, as no opportunity was provided to the petitioner by the Revisionist Court despite there being the information that the possession of the vehicle was with the petitioner on account of defaults in repayments of the loan amount availed by the respondent No.1.The hypothecate has ownership rights in the vehicle till the borrower repays the loan amount and thus, the notice to it in the criminal revision was a legal stipulation.

3. The vehicle was purchased by respondent No. 1 after availing the loan from the petitioner, which was repayable in monthly installments. The RC (Annexure-G) contains the endorsement to the extent of the petitioner as hypothecatee. The seizure of the vehicle from the borrower-respondent No. 1 was only made after numerous defaults in repayments were made. The respondent No. 1 did opt for two civil suits for mandatory injunction, directing the petitioner herein for the return of the vehicle before the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu and Munsiff, Jammu and the same were dismissed vide order (Annexure-D) dated 28th February, 2006 and order (Annexure-E) dated 27th December, 2007 respectively. The transfer of the vehicle in the record of the RTA, Jammu was being taken up and in the meantime, the vehicle being the blocked asset was at the request of the respondent No. 3 under refinance arrangement by way of loan was given after the execution of the requisite loan documents. Understandably, the change of ownership in the RTA record was to be undertaken b the respondent No. 3. It appears that the vehicle was being run to earn his livelihood at the time when due to certain violations of the Motor Vehicles Act, vehicle was seized by the police. It was subsequently released by the order of the learned Munsiff (JM), Chanani in favour of respondent No. 2 (brother of the respondent No. 3), who was the driver at the time of the seizure by the police as well as the order of release by the Court. The petitioner came to know about the seizure of the vehicle by the police from the respondent No. 3 and its release by the Court order and immediately took back its possession from the respondent No.3. As per the directions of the learned Munsiff (JMIC), Chenani, the petitioner entered appearance and made detailed submissions by way of application (Annexure-E). Despite orders of objections from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no objections were filed by the respondents and the Court passed the order dated 13th September, 2008 impugned.

4. The seizure of the vehicle under the violations of the Motor Vehicles Act and its order of release in favor of the respondent No. 2 is not the matter of controversy herein. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 13th September, 2008 passed by the learned Munsiff (JM), Chanani, wherein the directions have been given for the release of the vehicle to the respondent No. 1. It will mean from the custody of the financer, whose lien has been recorded in the RC. It is well settled legal preposition that the financer is legally the owner till the loan amount outstands and it is within it co