R.S.A. No. 2599 of 2009(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2599 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 23, 2009 Haryana Pesticides …..Appellant Vs. Managing Director Anangram Finance Co. Ltd. and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mrs. K.B. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff- appellant to the defendant- respondents for purchase of a Tata Siera Vehicle. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the respondents had played a fraud with the plaintiff by supplying Tata Siera vehicle in the name of Anangram Finance Company with registration No. R.S.A. No. 2599 of 2009(O&M) [2] CH-01-P-5140, which was a fake registration number. After having made the full payment of the instalments, the plaintiff and his representatives approached the defendant- respondents to transfer the vehicle to the plaintiff as the plaintiff wanted to sell the same but none of the communications was replied. The Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff does not have any locus standi to raise a claim against the defendant- respondents as the loan was got sanctioned for the vehicle from the defendant- respondent by Tarlok Singh and Tarlok Singh had executed hire- purchase agreement Ex.D1 on behalf of the plaintiff. It was Tarlok Singh who had entered into an agreement with M/s Anangram Finance Company Ltd. in his personal capacity. The Courts below have held that the vehicle in question was financed at Chandigarh as such it will be the Court at Chandigarh which could have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. I have considered the conditions of counsel for the appellant that cause of action had arisen at Ambala and that initial money was given at Ambala and that the Ambala Courts have got jurisdiction. Prima facie, the said finding of the Courts below can be said to be erroneous but setting aside of the finding on issue of jurisdiction will not, in any manner, benefit the plaintiff in view of the finding of the Courts below that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff- appellant and the defendant- respondent. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present case. The appeal is dismissed. However, it is observed that nothing said by the Courts below or by this Court will, in any manner, prejudice the R.S.A. No. 2599 of 2009(O&M) [3] rights of Tarlok Singh to put-forth his claim against the defendant- respondents in case he is able to establish violation of any civil rights. October 23, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE