AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ
The Petitioner has challenged an order dated 28th October, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Padampur whereby the Criminal Revision No.3 of 2016 filed by Opposite Party No.2 was allowed and an order dated 26th September, 2016 passed by the J.M.F.C., Sohela in Misc. Case No.56 of 2016 declining to release the TATA 407 (OM Bus) in favour of Opposite Party No.2 was set aside.
Accepting the plea of Opposite Party No.2 that he had purchased the vehicle in question from the present Petitioner, the ASJ directed its release in favour of Opposite Party No.2 on his executing an indemnity bond with conditions.
The grievance of the present Petitioner is that Opposite Party No.2 paid him only Rs.70,000/- and did not pay him the balance amount and, therefore, the vehicle ought not to be released in his favour.
The fact remains that the Petitioner did sign all the papers for effecting the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in favour of Opposite Party No.2. If he has any grievance about non-payment of the full consideration, the Petitioner ought to seek other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The Court does not find any ground made out for interference with the impugned order of the ASJ.
With the above observation, the petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Subordinate Court forthwith.
……………………………..