C.R. No.4815 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4815 of 2006 Date of Decision.04.10.2011 M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., SCO 3, Sector 26, 1st Floor Chandigarh through its legal officer Sh. Anurag Sharma .....Petitioner Versus Ram Lubhya Sharma s/o Sh. Tirath Ram Sharma r/o H.No.738, New Housing Board Colony, Karnal .....Respondent Present: None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The case which was adjourned sine die on 30.11.2006 is brought before Court for orders but there is no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. Since the matter is listed before this Court as per directions of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, I proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of records available. 2. During the pendency of suit for mandatory injunction filed at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff herein, an application had been filed by the plaintiff for production of RC book and route permit of Mahindra Max 2WD Jeep bearing registration No.HR-45-T-0087. The Appellate Court directed the documents to be produced and the defendant has challenged the same in the revision petition. The details in the written statement showcase the shocking state of affairs that about how the jurisdiction of the Court is sought to be misused. The C.R. No.4815 of 2006 -2- contention of the defendant in the written statement and as found expressed in the grounds of revision are that the petitioner is a financial institution which has lent monies under a hire-purchase agreement and when the plaintiff had not repaid the installments, the financial institution has in exercise of its powers under the Agreement seized the vehicle. The original RC book or the route permit are not with them. It is highly suspect, if such a suit is even maintainable for a right of seizure, for a hire-purchase agreement is enforcement of term of contract that is protected by law. There cannot be a mandatory relief or recovery of possession without a concomitant liability to make the payment due under the contract. The question of directing the documents to be produced does not arise in a case where the defendant contends that the document is not available. 3. The only order possible in a situation where the document is not produced is either to draw an adverse inference for the non- production or if the document is proved to be in the possession of defendant and it is not produced, the Court will be entitled to pass order in the manner laid down under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC and will have also the power to direct the defence to be struck off, if there is no compliance of the order as contemplated under Order 11 Rule 21. Before such an order is passed, it is imperative that the Courts records a finding that the document is in the custody of the party, which is directed to produce the same. The contention raised by the defendant in suit that the seizure of the vehicle was in pursuance to a clause in agreement providing for hire purchase and for payment of installments. It is necessary to see whether in the first place, the plaintiff is found C.R. No.4815 of 2006 -3- entitled to seek for return of the documents. The order passed by the trial Court is mechanical and without application of judicial mind. The order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court for disposal in accordance with law, which shall mean:- (i) examine the pleadings to know whether the documents sought to be produced, could be in the custody of defendant? (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled to production of documents if under any term of the contract, a financier is entitled to seize the vehicle for non payment of loan obtained? 4. The civil revision is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 04, 2011 Pankaj*