A purchaser pending suit cannot claim any prima facie case in his favour or equity.

1. Therevision petitioner field a suit in O.S. No. 6792 of 1999, in the City Civil Court at Madras (III Assistant Judge), for declaration that the seizure and custody of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-01 E.3211, 1992 Model Ashok Leyland lorry, by the defendant on 19. 1998 is illegal and untenable, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, using, mortgaging of creating any encumbrances on the said vehicle and for an order of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to release the vehicle to the plaintiff and for damages.

2. The plaint in that suit was presented into Court on 29. 1998. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. One Padamchand Choudhry and Anoop Chand Choudhry are the defendants. The defendants in the suit are described as doing finance in the name and style of Timco Finance and Choudhry Syndicate, and the 1st defendant is said to be the proprietor of both the finance companies.

3. The plaintiff’s case in short is that the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01 E-3211 was purchased by the plaintiff with the financial assistance of the defendants on 2. 1996. According to him, he has paid the instalment dues regularly. He purchased the said lorry from one Thirumalaikumar and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the vehicle. The abovesaid lorry that was purchased by the plaintiff is said to be a 2nd hand lorry for which, the financial facility was availed of by the plaintiff from the defendants 1 and 2.

4. The lorry was seized on 19. 1998. The plaint suit has been laid on 29. 1998......... Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed three applications, one for injunction, other for mandatory injunction and the third one for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. On these applications, notice was ordered to the defendants. The defendants entered into appearance through their counsel, but they did not choose to file any counter, inspite of grant of time. Therefore, on 12. 1999,........... an order was passed, appointing Advocate Commissioner to seize the lorry. Accordingly, the Advocate-Commissioner, after complying with the formalities necessary for the purpose of executing the warrant, seized the lorry on 22. 1999. Now, the lorry is in the custody of the Commissioner. While it is so, an application was filed in I.A. No. 3301 of 1999 by one Muthukumaraswamy, directing the return of the lorry to him. He also filed an application to implead him as a party to the suit in O.S. No. 6792 of 1998. The III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, allowed both the applications viz., that filed to implead the 3rd party as a defendant to the suit and the other for the return of the lorry to the 3rd party. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the III Assistant Judge, in I.A. No. 3301 of 1999, which was filed by the 3rd party for direction to the respondent to return the lorry to him, the plaintiff in the suit has come up with this Revision.

5. The important point to be noted is that the suit is filed by its petitioner herein seeking several reliefs with reference to the lorry, which is said to be an oil tanker, bearing Registration No. TN-01-E3211. The main relief is for the declaration that the seizure and custody of the vehicle is illegal. One of the consequential reliefs claimed is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, and subordinates from alienating, using, mortgaging or creating any encumbrance over the said vehicle. The 3rd party has purchased the vehicle from the defendants on 211. 1998. In other words, after filing of the suit with reference to the lorry and after the defendants have been served with notice, the sale has been effected in favour of the 3rd party.

6. It is true that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot apply to a movable property. It only has an impact upon the immovable property, which is the subject matter of a suit or proceeding. Here, the lorry in question is directly and specifically the subject matter of th