A financing company is entitled to seek custody of a vehicle financed by it in case of default in payment of instalments by the purchaser.

Heard and perused the impugned orders dated 22. 6. 2002 and 2. 7. 2002, passed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

2. The revisionists case is that it had financed on request of the opposite party No. 2 Munna a three wheeler tempo. Unfortunately, the said tempo met with an accident. In the accident case, the police of the police station Sahadatganj, Lucknow seized the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 Munna authorized the revisionist to get the vehicle released in favour of the company as he was neither able to make repayment of the instalment nor able to proceed with the litigation pertaining to the accident civil or criminal. The Court of IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the revisionists application on the ground that the company was not a registered owner, instead the vehicle was registered in the name of Munna as its owner.

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the company was entitled to seek custody of the three wheeler tempo on the ground of there being a clause in the Hire-Purchase Agreement which authorised it to take custody of the vehicle in case of there being defalcation in payment of the instalments by the purchaser.

4. Reliance has been placed on the Supreme Courts citation, K. A. Mathai alias Babu and another v. Kora Bibbikutty and another1. 1996 SCC 281 (Cri ). M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Shri P. Khaishiulla Khan and others, 1993 Crlj 1069. and Sardar Mahendra Singh Ajmani and another v. State of U. P. and another, 1998 JIG 460 (All) I. II. . In all these citations, it has been held that a financing company would be entitled to get custody of a vehicle which was financed by it provided the purchaser has committed default in payment of its dues.

5. The attention of learned IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow is drawn towards all these citations with a direction that the revisionists application for interim custody of the vehicle shall be decided afresh on the basis of its allegations and the principle of law laid down in the citations referred to above. With this direction and observations, the impugned orders dated 22. 6. 2002 and 2. 7. 2002 are, therefore, quashed.

6. Accordingly this petition is finally disposed of.

.