Under a hire-purchase agreement, the financier retains ownership rights until full payment is made, and the expanded definition of 'owner' under the Motor Vehicles Act recognizes the rights of the hirer while preserving the rights of the financier.

R. C. Kathuria, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present revision challenging legality of order dated 23/12/2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, directing the release of jeep bearing registration No. HR 34/7486 on Superdari to M/s Ashok Leyland, Hisra (petitioner herein) was set aside and the vehicle was directed to be released on Superdari to Ramesh Kumar, respondent.

2. A few facts need to be noticed in order to focus the controversy raised in the present petition.

3. Ramesh Kumar (respondent herein) had entered into hire-purchase agreement dated 27.2.1998 with the petitioner so as to avail finance facility for the purchase of Mahindra and Mahindra jeep bearing registration No. HR-34/7486. Out of the total invoice value of the jeep amounting, to Rs.3.06.000.00 . a sum of Rs.2.00.000/was financed by the petitioner at the finance charges rate 12.92 per cent flat per annum, which was repayable in 23 hire money installments commencing from 27.2.1998 upto 27.12.1999. Respondent had also agreed to pay additional finance charges at the rate of 36 per cent per annum in the event of default in making payment 9f any installment until final payment. Under agreement dated 27.2.1998 (Annexure P-i), petitioner was termed as owner and respondent as the hirer. It was stipulated in the agreement that if any of the terms of the agreement was contravened by the respondent, petitioner shall be entitled to take possession of the vehicle. The respondent did not maintain the schedule of payment of installments, a sum of Rs.1,08,122/- became due and outstanding from him as per accounts settled on 27.10.2000. In view of the default in payment of installments by the respondent, the petitioner authorised Chhotu Ram on 19.5.2000 to take possession of the vehicle in question from the respondent as per office letter dated 19.5.2000. The said vehicle was taken into possession by the police in a criminal case bearing FIR No.101 dated 25.5.2000 registered under Sections 323/506/341/500/506/147/149, IPC. , with Police Station Badhra, District Bhiwani. According to the stand of the petitioner, this FIR was manipulated and got registered by the respondent in order to frustrate repossession of the vehicle. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle in question on Superdari and as per order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, the application filed by the petitioner was accepted and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner on furnishing necessary surety bonds. The order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was challenged in revision petition filed by the respondent which was accepted by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, as per the order dated 23.12.2000 and the order dated 7.6.2000 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri was set aside and the vehicle in question was directed to be released to the respondent on Superdari. It is under these circumstances, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, has been challenged in the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. It has been strenuously urged by the counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the agreement dated 27.2.1998, petitioner continued to be owner of the vehicle in question because the respondent had committed default in payment of hire money installments and a sum of Rs.1,08,122/- was due and outstanding against him as per accounts settled on 27.10.2000 and for that reason the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate had rightly ordered the vehicle to be released in favour of the petitioner, being the financier and owner of the vehicle. In support of the stand taken, reliance was placed upon judgments in Sardar Trilok Singh and. others V/s. Satya Deo Triiathi, and Maniial Finance Corioration Limited V/s. T. Banciaraiia and another.

6. O