COCP No. 1944 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 1944 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: September 16, 2009 Sarban Singh son of Roop Singh .. Petitioner Versus Shri Arvinder Singh Bedi ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for respondent .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) A request for adjournment has been made. Same is found to be unjustified and rejected. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 11 lacs from Magma Sharachi Finance Limited for purchase of Truck bearing registration No. PB-04-L-9949. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid truck was repossessed by the respondent contrary to the rule of law. He approached this court by filing CWP No. 11147 of 2008. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this court vide order dated 27.8.2008 with the direction to the respondent to hand over the physical custody of the vehicle to the petitioner at Ludhiana within two weeks from the date of the aforesaid order. The present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the aforesaid order dated 27.8.2008 passed in CWP No. 11147 of 2008 by the respondent stating that he failed to return the truck in question. In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, COCP No. 1944 of 2008 2 respondent filed reply by way of his affidavit stating that the petitioner had intentionally stopped making payment of the instalments of loan and the truck in question was taken into possession only in due course of law after issuing notice to him and police authorities. It was further submitted that a conditional order was passed on 31.7.2008 in CWP No.11147 of 2008 to release the truck in question subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 75000/-. The respondent intimated the petitioner vide letters dated 19.8.2008, 23.8.2008 and 25.8.2008 to get the release order for delivery of the truck. However, instead of approaching the respondent for delivery of truck, the petitioner has filed the present petition against the respondent. From the record, it reveals that on 4.8.2009, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the truck was not in a road worthy condition and for this reason,the delivery of the truck was not taken by the petitioner. The respondent was directed to place on record the road worthiness certificate with regard to the vehicle in question. On 10.8.2009, the respondent filed Valuer's report, according to which, the vehicle was in road worthy condition. On that date, the petitioner was directed to approach the respondent to take delivery of the vehicle in question during that week. On 8.9.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner stated before this court that the petitioner had gone to take delivery of the truck but the ignition of the same was not functioning, whereas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent disputed the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and stated that the truck was in perfect running condition and even he was ready to accompany the petitioner to Ludhiana to hand over the truck, and as such, on consensus, the case was adjourned to 16.9.2009 and the petitioner was directed to be present at Ludhiana on 12.9.2009 at 10 A.M., and it was ordered that the delivery of the truck in running condition be given to the petitioner in the presence of counsel for the parties. Today, a request for adjournment has been made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner without citing any valid reason, the same was not accepted. The petitioner is also not present in the court. COCP No. 1944 of 2008 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that he was present in the Parking Yard on 12.9.2009 at 9.30 A.M. The petitioner did not came at 10 A.M as directed by this court. However, petitioner reached at 12.15 P.M. on the same day. The vehicle was inspected/checked by him. The same was in road worthy condition. The Legal Officer of the respondent company was also present with a letter for release of vehicle to the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to take the delivery. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record certificate of Jasminder Singh Sandhu, owner of the parking yard where the truck is parked and a vehicle release letter issued by the respondent-company. The respondent has also placed on record a Gate Pass authorized by the respondent company intimating the owner of the parking yard to allow Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate to enter in the parking yard. However, Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate was not present. These documents are placed on the record and marked as Ex. CD-1, CD-2 and CD-3 respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents on record. From the aforesaid facts, the conduct of the petitioner is very much evident and it seems that under the threat of this contempt petition, he is pressurizing the respondent not to press the recovery/re-payment of loan from him. The conduct of the petitioner is highly deplorable as he has tried to use the court proceedings for extraneous reasons. Thus, this petition being frivolous is dismissed with costs which are assessed as Rs. 10000/-. Rule discharged. September 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE