Section 51(5) MV Act mandates considering fresh RC applications despite civil attachment orders.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a banking Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The 2^nd respondent had availed a loan from the petitioner for the purchase of a 2021 model Maruthi Suzuki Swift VXI motor car bearing Registration No.KL-47K-2961 and hypothecation was duly noted in the registration certificate. On default of payment of installments, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act . The petitioner has repossessed the vehicle from the 2^nd respondent pursuant to Ext.P2 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the 1^st respondent for issuance of fresh registration certificate. The 1^st respondent informed the petitioner that fresh registration certificate cannot be issued due to Ext.P4 ad-interim attachment order issued by the Musiff Court, Kodungalloor in O.S.No.917/2024, which arise out of a dispute between respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8561/2025 and this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment dated 13.06.2025, directed the 1^st respondent to consider the application for fresh registration certificate.

2. The 1^st respondent, by Ext.P6 order, rejected the application stating that in view of Ext.P4 attachment order passed in O.S.No.917/2024 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur in connection with the civil dispute between the 2^nd respondent and the additional 3^rd respondent, fresh registration certificate cannot be issued. Challenging Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the

1^st respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application and pass appropriate orders thereon.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Though notice has been issued to the 2^nd respondent and the additional 3^rd respondent, there is no appearance.

4. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P4, there is no order injuncting the 1^st respondent from transferring the vehicle. Further, in view of the provisions contained in Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), the 1^st respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner for fresh registration notwithstanding the orders of the civil court.

5. A statement has been placed on record on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein it is stated that fresh RC could not be considered because of the attachment order issued by the Munsiff Court in O.S.No.917/2024. It is further stated that as per the attachment order, the vehicle is garaged within the residence of the 2^nd respondent.

6. It is contended by Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Bank is not a party to the suit and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not create a bar on the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle due to order of attachment. It is further contended that the vehicle is in the possession of the petitioner and not the 2^nd respondent as stated in the statement filed by the 1^st respondent. It is argued that Ext.P6 is a cryptic and non-speaking order passed without adverting to the provision of Section 51(5) of the Act and mis- construing the effect of Ext.P4 order of the civil court.

7. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P6 order has been passed without adverting to the contentions of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside and there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application of the petitioner with notice to the 2^nd respondent and the additional 3^rd respondent, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this j