1 9 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11044/2010 Satyanarain Vs. Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Date of Order :: 29th November 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.D.P.Pujari,for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Civil Appeal (Order) No.35/2009. The petitioner has filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction against the attempts at forcible recovery of the dues by the defendant, a finance company who is said to have extended loan to the petitioner for purchase of a vehicle. The application for temporary injunction filed in this suit was considered and rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division) No.3, Bikaner on 22.07.2009 after finding that the prima facie case was not in favour of the petitioner who failed to deposit the amount of due installments. The learned Trial Court further found that the matter related to re-payment of loan and being that of ascertained sum of money, the question of irreparable injury was not in favour of the 2 petitioner. The learned Appellate Court, however, partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-petitioner after finding it appropriate that if he would deposit the due amount of installments, the defendant finance company would not take over possession of the vehicle in question and would not interfere in plying of the same. It is sought to be contended in this petition that the defendant finance company is seeking to harass the petitioner with reference to a so-called agreement dated 03.03.2009 though the same was not a valid agreement and was rather a fraudulent document. The submissions in this regard seem not to have been advanced before the learned subordinate courts and such submissions cannot be considered for the first time in the writ jurisdiction. So far the impugned order is concerned, having regard to the principles of law applicable, the learned Appellate Court would have rather not interfered with the order of the Trial Court at all. However, the learned Additional District Judge has in the balance of equities directed that upon the petitioner making payment of the due amount, the defendant company would not interfere with the vehicle. There does not appear any jurisdictional error in the order so passed by the learned Additional District Judge; and there is no reason to consider 3 any interference in this order at the instance of the plaintiff- petitioner. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel also submitted that the defendant finance company has commended the proceedings before the Arbitrator and hence, some directions may be issued to the Arbitrator for granting interim relief. This Court would not like to make any comment in this regard as the proceedings before the Arbitrator are not the subject-matter of this writ petition; and it is left open for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law. With the observations foregoing, the petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni