1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 9 8 2 of 2009 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 10-06-2009 passed in WP.No. 10689 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge disposed the main writ petition leaving it open to the writ petitioner to repay whatever the amounts due to the respondents under hypothecation agreement and on receipt of such amounts the second respondent shall release the vehicle in question. 2. The main writ petition was filed seeking declaration that the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in seizing the writ petitioner's vehicle bearing No. AP-16-TW-2536 as arbitrary, illegal and for a consequential direction to release the said vehicle. 3. Sri M.V. Suresh, the learned counsel representing the appellant contended that it is an admitted fact that the appellant entered into hypothecation agreement with the second respondent on 30-5-2006 for purchase of the vehicle bearing No. AP-16-TW-2536 and further contends that the appellant committed default in payment of instalments under hypothecation agreement. Thereafter, the second respondent seized the vehicle on 27-5-2009. The said action of the second respondent was challenged in the writ petition. But the learned single Judge directed the appellant to repay whatever the amounts due to the respondents under hypothecation agreement instead of considering the fact that the contract is in subsistence in which the hypothecation of the vehicle is made part and parcel, and therefore, but for the couple of dues instalments will not empower the financier to seize and sell the vehicle without giving opportunity, therefore, the order of the learned single Judge in directing the appellant to pay the entire amount due without verifying the statement of account especially when the possession of the vehicle is not with the appellant is illegal and unsustainable. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that the hypothecation agreement is between the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 and if the appellant fail to repay the amounts due to the Respondents 2 and 3 under hypothecation agreement then certainly the Respondents 2 and 3 will seize the vehicle for recovery of the finance. 5. Under the above circumstances, it is only a private dispute between the appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. The appellant can avail the remedy open to him before the appropriate forum. The writ appeal is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ___________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 29-07-2009. I s L