: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.881 OF 2009 M/s.Automotive Trading Company ... Appellant V/s. Shri Yagyanarayan Rajpati Singh & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Vimlesh Singh for Appellant Mr.B.N. Shukla for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appellant has filed the present Appeal from Order against the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the City Civil Court. By this order the trial Court has directed the plaintiffs to deposit in the Court Rs.45,000/- towards the repayment of the loan which was availed of from the defendant for purchase of a car. Admittedly, the car which is being run as a taxi is hypothecated with the appellant. While passing the aforesaid order, the Court has also directed that the taxi which was seized by the Appellant from the Plaintiffs should be handed over to the plaintiffs. This arrangement is ordered to continue till the disposal of the suit. 2. According to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, about Rs. 98,000/- is due and payable by the respondents. Against this, an amount of Rs. : 2 : 45,000/- has been directed to be paid by the respondents to the appellants by way of interim relief and the taxi was directed to be released to the respondents. In my opinion, there is no error committed by the Court below. A discretionary order has been passed, which in my view, has been passed in accordance with law and therefore there is no need to interfere with the same. Besides, the respondents dispute the fact that any amount is due and payable to the Appellant as according to them they have paid the appellant over Rs.1,00,000/- towards repayment of the loan. 3. Therefore, the Appeal from order is rejected. The taxi shall be handed over to the Respondent within a week from today. 4. In view of the Appeal being rejected, Civil Application No.1083 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.