- (1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the orders dated 14th August, 2008 as also the order dated 29th August, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Bharatpur and Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, respectively.
(2.) Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff raised a loan of Rs.3,16,000/- on 7th April, 2004 from the State Bank of India, Branch Bharatpur for the purpose of purchasing a Tractor. The petitioner used the Tractor for the agricultural purposes. During the use of Tractor, Government of India launched a scheme whereby the loan raised for the agricultural purposes were written off. Thus, an amount of Rs.2,56,964/- could be said to have been paid by him. Despite there being a repayment of the loan, the respondent-Bank seized the Tractor and sold the same in an open auction. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC imploring the Court to restrain the respondent-Bank from making any auction of the said Tractor. But the learned trial Court dismissed the temporary injunction application vide order dated 14th August, 2008. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred an appeal and the civil Misc. Appeal No.35/2008 also stood dismissed and the impugned order was upheld. Dissatisfied with the orders rendered by the courts below, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned orders passed by the two courts below, it is noticed that the learned trial Court dismissed the application of temporary injunction application on the ground that the Tractor seized by the respondent-Bank had already been auctioned, thus, the respondent-Bank could not be restrained from making any auction of the said Tractor. Learned trial Court also observed that no cause of action was made out in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court also concurred with the view taken by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. There is concurrent findings of facts in the matter of two courts below.;