RSA No.2373 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2373 of 2006 Date of decision: 11.5.2010 Rajinder Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Tata Finance etc. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction restraining the respondents from selling the vehicle in question, further to anyone, has been dismissed. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff-appellant had taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defendant-respondents for purchasing the vehicle in question. Again, it is not in dispute that the parties to the suit had entered into a Hire purchase agreement in respect of the loan amount taken by the plaintiff-appellant. As per the agreement, the plaintiff- appellant was to repay the loan amount in 35 monthly installments of Rs.9,800/- each. Undisputedly, the appellant failed to repay the said installments and as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Hire Purchase agreement, the vehicle in question was repossessed by the respondents. Though in this suit, the plaintiff had sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from selling the vehicle in question yet there was no restraint order from the Civil Court to the defendants not to sell the vehicle and during the pendency of the suit, RSA No.2373 of 2006 2 admittedly, the said vehicle was sold by the respondents for a sum of Rs.1,72,000/-. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below dismissed the suit having become infructuous as relief in the suit claimed was only for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from selling the aforesaid vehicle. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below submitting that the appellant admittedly paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- in April 2001 i.e. after the vehicle was repossessed and thereafter, it is respondents' own case that they sold the vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- whereas on the date of filing of the suit, a sum of Rs.2,08,800/- + Rs.37,319/- were payable to the respondents and in this view of the matter, the appellant was entitled to the adjustment of the amount paid by him. I am afraid, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit. Even if assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant was entitled to any relief of adjustment, even after adjustment of the aforesaid amount, still some amount is outstanding against the appellant. In spite of this, the appellant has already been discharged from his liability by the respondents. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. May 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE