Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 188
High Court Of Orissa
P. C. NAIK, P. K. MOHANTY
AMRITLAL DAS PATTANAIK - Appellant
Versus
TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. CASE 4040 Of 1996
Decided On : 12/13/1996
A.K.Mohapatra, ASHOK PARIJA, B.CH.MOHANTY, B.P.SATPATHY, G.RATH, K.N.PARIDA, M.MISHRA, N.K.PATNAIK, P.PR.MOHANTY, S.P.SARANGI, TRIPATI
The High Court's powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are wide, but they are not to be exercised to correct errors of fact or law which are not apparent on the face of the record, unless such error affects the jurisdiction or involves a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT - SEIZURE OF VEHICLE - RELEASE OF VEHICLE - COURT'S JURISDICTION - ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CIVIL P. C., S. 151 - O. 39, RR. 1 AND 2 - HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT - SEIZURE OF VEHICLE - RELEASE OF VEHICLE - COURT'S JURISDICTION - ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CIVIL P. C., S. 151 - O. 39, RR. 1 AND 2.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the financier for a bus. The petitioner made a down payment and agreed to pay the balance in monthly installments. The financier seized the bus for non-payment of installments. The petitioner filed a suit for rendition of accounts, compensation, and other incidental relief. He also filed an application under S. 151 of the Civil P. C. for release of the bus. The trial court and the revisional court dismissed the application.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the revisional order of the District Judge in exercise of its powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the merits of the case could not be gone into in the writ petition and that the questions of fact, such as whether there had been a breach of the conditions of the hire-purchase agreement and what was the amount due, were subject-matters of decision of the trial court in the suit filed by the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the revisional order of the District Judge in exercise of its powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the merits of the case could be gone into in the writ petition? 3. Whether the questions of fact, such as whether there had been a breach of the conditions of the hire-purchase agreement and what was the amount due, were subject-matters of decision of the trial court in the suit filed by the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The powers conferred on the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are wide and are not subject to limitations as are prescribed under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. 2. However, the High Court will not interfere with the findings of fact unless they are perverse, not based on any material, or such that no reasonable person would possibly return that finding. 3. The High Court will also not interfere to correct errors of fact or law which are not apparent on the face of the record, unless such error affects the jurisdiction or involves a breach of the principles of natural justice. 4. The High Court cannot, in exercise of powers under Art. 227, reappraise the evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
P. C. NAIK, J.
( 1 ) THOUGH styled as one under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this petition is, in fact, one under Art. 227 thereof. The orders impugned are annexures and 4 whereby the petitioner's application under S. 151 of the Civil P. C. for release of the bus in question was turned down by tic trial court as well as the revisional court.
( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner had entered into a hire-purchase agreement in respect of a bus with its chasis (vehicle bearing registration number ORA 2322 ). The total contract amount was Rs. 4,16,930/- out of which a down payment of Rs. 33,549/- towards hire charges was made and the balance hire charges of Rs. 3,83,,381-was to be paid in thirty-five monthly installments, as provided in the hire-purchase agreement. It is not disputed that for nonfulfilment of the term regarding payment the vehicle was seized by the financer. There is however, a dispute between the panics regarding the amount due under the hire-purchase agreement. . In view of the seizure of the bus, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 175 of 1995 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ). First Court, Cuttack, against opposite parties 1 and 2 for rendition of accounts. compensation and other incidental relief. Apprehending auction-sale of the vehicle by the financier. the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under O. 39. Rr. 1 and 2. C. P. C. for restraining the defendants from transferring the seized. bus to any third person during the pendency of the suit and ad interim order has been passed though the final adjudication of that application is awaited.
( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to the filing the application for interim injunction. the petitioner had filed an application under S. 151 of the Civil P. C. for directing the defendants (opposite parties 1 and 2 ) to release the bus in his favour. This application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has no right to ply it without payment Of Rs. 1. 15. 166/. which is the amount due under the hire-purchase agreement as on 26-6-1995. On the other hand, the plaintiff is that for a paltry amount of Rs. 25. 380/- which is the only amount due, he has been deprived. of using the bus in which huge amount was invested by him as what was supplied to him under the hirepurchase agreement was the chasis and engine only.
( 4 ) THE trial court afteer taking into consideration the dispute involved in the case and the fact that injunction proceeding are pending in which an ad interim order has already been passed restraining the defendants form transferring. the bus to any third person. came to the conclusion that this application was premature. It was also of the opinion that as to what in fact is the amount due under the hire-purchase agreement and whether all the installments had been paid or not, are yet to be adjudicated upon. It accordingly, was of the opinion that there was no substance in the application which was dismissed on 28-8l995 (vide Annexure 3 ).
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid on order, the petitioner approached the District Judge. Cuttack, in Civil Revision No, 1 13 of l995 which has been dismissed on 24-4-1996 (vide Annexure 4 ). In his order, the- District Judge has also observed that it was not within the exercise of his revisional. jurisdiction to determine at that stage whether or not the seizure of the bus for non-payment of hire-purchase instalments was proper, more so in view of the fact that Clause 7 of the hire-purchase agreement reserved with the hirer a right to seize the vehicle for nor-payment of instalments. He was further of the opinion that as to whether ownership has in fact passed to the plaintiff (petitioner), is also yet to be decided. He, accordingly dismissed the revision as having no merit: The District Judge, however, observed that the Observations made were only for the purpose of the revision petition and will not bind the tri
