- (1.) S. N. Saxena, J. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. A very short question is involved in this revision and therefore with the consent of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. I propose to decide the same today.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a Tractor which was seized and thereafter ordered to be released by the learned Magistrate in favour of its registered owner. THE opposite party Mattu claimed possession of this Tractor with the allegation that he had purchased it from its registered owner. THE proceedings had initiated under Sections 181/192/196/207/208 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi entertained the revision application moved by Mattu and after considering the matter, allowed the revision application and directed the release of the Tractor in favour of him. Aggrieved, Lala Ram preferred this revision application. It is admitted case of the parties that Lala Ram is the registered owner of the Tractor now. The learned counsel for the revisionist had placed reliance upon a number of decisions of this Court in support of his contention that the Tractor should have been released in favour of its registered owner subject to the rights of the parties for getting the ownership decided by the competent court. The decisions relied upon are as follows : (1) 1992 (29) ACC 52 : 1992 JIC 39-Neeraj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others. (2) 1992 (28) ACC m-Hafeez Khan v. State of U. P. and others. (3) 1988 ACrr 491- Devendra Kumar v. State of U. P. and others. After going through the decisions, I find that the Tractor should have been released in favour of Lala Ram and not Mattu. I specifically referred ownership of its registered owner and enquired from the learned counsel for the opposite parties as to how it was open to this court to ignore the above- mentioned decisions but he was unable to cite even a single decision to support his contention that the Tractor should have been released in favour of Mattu as he had purchased it from its registered owner. The revision application is, therefore, liable to be allowed.
(3.) THE revision application is allowed. THE impugned order/judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi are set aside while the decision of the learned 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi, dated 5-11-1992 is restored. THE Tractor shall be released in favour of its registered owner. Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the revi sionist on payment of usual charges within 48 hours. Revision allowed. .;