- (1.) This petition is filed to set aside the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-11, Aluva, [Annexure-8] granting interim custody of the vehicle-KBE 1503 to the respondent in this petition.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he entered into a contract of sale of said bus KBE 1503 which was owned and possessed by the respondent for an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- and the contract of sale was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 10-5-1994 and the terms and conditions were reduced into writing and the contract is filed as Annexure-1. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to the respondent and the balance amount was to be paid within six months as per the terms of the contract. As per the terms of the contract the possession of the bus was entrusted to the petitioner along with all the documents including the registration certificate of the bus and the permit for plying the bus. According to the petitioner when the matter stood thus, the respondent committed theft of the bus on 16-10-1994 and the petitioner then filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva, against the respondent and 2 others for offence punishable under S.379 and 506 I.P.C. Along with the complaint the petitioner also filed an application to search and seize the bus and the same was seized by the police on the orders of the Magistrate and produced before the Court. The petitioner then filed an application in Crl. M.P No 4646 of 1994 under S.451 Crl. P.C, [Annexure-6]. The respondent also filed a claim petition in Crl. M.P. 4673 of 1994 requesting for the interim custody of the bus. The Magistrate by his common order directed that the interim custody of the vehicle shall be with the respondent and aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate this petition is now filed.
(3.) I have heard both counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that he had taken possession of the bus from the respondent by virtue of the agreement [Annexure-1]. But the respondent contends that the possession of the bus was not actually given to the petitioner and that the bus was actually sold to one Baby, S/o. Ouseph by a written agreement and since the conditions of the agreement were not honoured the vehicle was returned back to him by the said Baby. The respondent further contended that on 2-10-1994 the petitioner possessed the vehicle by force and also obtained the documents relating to the bus from the conductors bag on 28-9-1994. In short, the case of the respondent is that he never entered into an agreement with the petitioner and the present agreement produced in court [Annexure-1] is a forged one and that the documents relating to the bus were stolen away by the petitioner on 28-9-1994 from the conductors bag and later on the bus was forcibly possessed by the petitioner 2-10-1994. It is also said that the petitioner filed O.S. No. 580 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Paravoor, for an injunction to restrain the respondent from forcibly taking away the bus from the possession of the petitioner and temporary injunction was also granted. Since the bus was stolen away from the possession of the petitioner the said temporary injunction originally granted was not extended. The respondent also filed original suit on O.S. No. 497 of 1994 before the District Munsiff, Aluva, for an injunction to restrain one Baby and the petitioner from forcibly snatching away the said bus. In the said original suit filed by the respondent an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 4171 of 1994 praying for a temporary injunction was also filed. But the District Munsiff did not grant any interim injunction in the I. A., but passed an order saying that 'status quo' will remain.;