JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the order of the S. D. J. M., Bolangir dated 13-1-1989 in G.R. Case No. 566 of 1988 directing the release of the bus bearing registration No. ORR-6827 seized in the said case in favour of Rusi Guru (Opp. Party No. 2). 2. The Petitioner's case may be briefly stated as follows: The Opp. Party No. 2 Rusi Guru was the registered owner of the bus bearing No. ORR-6827. By virtue of a plain paper partition deed/agreement executed on 3-5.1988 between the Petitioner and Opp. party No. 2, who are brothers, the bus in question was given to the Petitioner and it was agreed to between the parties that the Petitioner should pay Rs. 50,000/-to Opp. party No. 2 and further repay the loan injured by Opp. party No. 2 for the purchase of the bus to the State Bank of lndia Balangir, by instalments and after the loan amount is fully repaid. Opp. party No. 2 would take steps for transfer of the ownership of the bus in favour of the Petitioner. In pursuance of the terms of the said deed the Petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/- to Opp. party No. 2 by means of chaques and took delivery of possession of the bus from Opp. party No. 2. Further the Petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 21,500/- to the financing. Bank by way of instalments from June, 1988 onwards. Thus, the Petitioner was in lawful possession of the bus and was plying it in his own right in pursuance of the terms agreed to between the parties. On 30-12-1988 when the bus was in the private bus stand, Bolangir, Opp. party No. 1 forcibly took away the bus. Hence the Petitioner's son had to lodge the F. I. R. complaining theft of his father's bus by Opp. party No. 1. On the basis of the F. I. R., G.R. Case No. 566/88 u/s 379, I. P. C. was registered against Opposite party No. 1 and the bus in question was seized from the possession of the Opposite, Parties. The Petitioner claims that in view of the above facts and circumstances he is entitled to the possession of the bus u/s 457. Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Opp. The Petitioner claims that in view of the above facts and circumstances he is entitled to the possession of the bus u/s 457. Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Opp. parties denied the execution of any agreement partition deed on 3-5-1988 whereunder the bus was allegedly delivered to the Petitioner. They further denied about payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the Petitioner to Opp. party No. 2 or about the Petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 21,500/- in the financing bank. The Opp. parties have said that the Petitioner was never in lawful possession of the bus and the bus was always in the possession of opp. party No. 2 as the owner there of and the bus was seized from his possession by the police. The Opp. parties alleged that the Petitioner's son lodged the F. I. R. with false allegations. The Opp. parties claim that the learned S. D. J. M. has passed the impugned order after taking all the relevant facts into consideration and therefore, the revision petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismised. 4. From the arguments advanced by the parties during the course of the hearing, it is seen that the only point that arises for consideration is, in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases whether it is the Petitioner or the Opp. party No. 2, who is the person entitled to the possession of the bus bearing No. ORR-6827. 5. Admittedly, Opp; party No. 2. Rusi Guru was the registered owner of the bus and the registration certificate also stands in his name. The Petitioner claims to have obtains possession of the vehicle in pursuance of the plain paper/agreement partition deed dated 3-5-1988 said to have been executed between the parties. The very fact that the said plain paper document dated 3-5-01988 is referred to by the Petitioner both as a partition deed and also as an agreement reveals that he is not definite even about the nature of the document. The Opp. parties denied the execution of any such document. Admittedly the value of the bus is more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. Even according to the Petitioner so far he paid only a sum of Rs. 50.000/- to Opp. party No. 2 and deposited a sum of Rs. 21.500/- towards discharge of the loan incurred by Opp. party No. 2 for the purchase of the bus. Admittedly the value of the bus is more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. Even according to the Petitioner so far he paid only a sum of Rs. 50.000/- to Opp. party No. 2 and deposited a sum of Rs. 21.500/- towards discharge of the loan incurred by Opp. party No. 2 for the purchase of the bus. Admittedly the major portion of the loan payable to the financing bank is yet' to be discharged. The recital in the deed dated 3-5-1988 would show that it is only after the entire loan amount of the financing bank is paid by the Petitioner, the ownership of the vehicle would be transferred by Opp. party No. 2 in favour of the Petitioner. So admittedly by the relevant date Opp. party No. 2 continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The Petitioner produces the original credit pass book and R.C. Book relating to the vehicle in question and very much relies on the same to show that the delivery of the vehicle was given to him in pursuance of the agreement dated 3-5-1988. The Opposite parties allege that the said documents relating to the vehicle were stolen by the Petitioner. It is significant that in the said deed dated 3-5-1988 there is no mention of the delivery of any documents relating to the vehicle to the Petitioner. The most material fact is the seizure of the vehicle by the pollee from the possession of the Opp. parties. All the above referred facts are relevant for the purpose of coming to a decision regarding the, delivery of the vehicle u/s 457. Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Mahammed Zariff and Anr. v. Sk. Zinaullah 1987 (II) O.L.R. 283. In that case admittedly the opposite-party, the registered owner of the vehicle entered into an agreement with the Petitioners for the sale of the vehicle and according to the terms of the agreement, from 15-1-1981, the Petitioners became the owners of the vehicle and their possession of the vehicle since that day was as owners. In that view of the matter, the order of the Sessions Judge directing release of the truck to the opposite party was set aside and the order of the learned. Magistrate directing release of the truck bus to the Petitioner No. 1 was restored. In that view of the matter, the order of the Sessions Judge directing release of the truck to the opposite party was set aside and the order of the learned. Magistrate directing release of the truck bus to the Petitioner No. 1 was restored. In that decision, what was relied on, is the principle enunciated by this Court in M.S. Jaggi Vs. Subaschandra Mohapatra that the person entitled to possession would be one from whose possession the property was seized and such person is found not to have committed any offence so as to render his possession unlawful. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Sri Ph. Arunachalm v. State of Orissa and Anr. 1989 (II) O.L.R. 6 (1). In that case the Petitioner is the representative of Coromandal Finance Company Ltd. and pursuant to a hire purchase agreement between the said Finance Company and the opposite party No. 2, a sum of Rs. 2,35,900/- was advanced to opposite party No. 2 as loan for purchase of the vehicle and it was expressly stipulated in the agreement that the Financing Company would continue to be the owner of the vehicle until the entire loan amount is paid up and that in the event of the borrower failing to pay the instalments in time, the financing Company can take possession of the vehicle. On 8-9-1987 the Petitioner took over possession of the vehicle in accordance with the terms of the hire purchase agreement. The Police seized the vehicle from the custody of the Petitioner on 18-10-1987. Considering those facts, this Court held that u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner was entitled to the possession of the vehicle and accordingly allowed the revision petition directing the delivery of the vehicle to him. 8. The above referred decisions of this Court clearly indicate the guidelines to be followed while disposing of a petition filed u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, admittedly by the relevant date the opposite party No. 2 Rusi. Guru was the registered owner of the vehicle ORS.6827 and the registration certificate also stands in his name and the vehicle was seized from the opposite parties. In the present case, admittedly by the relevant date the opposite party No. 2 Rusi. Guru was the registered owner of the vehicle ORS.6827 and the registration certificate also stands in his name and the vehicle was seized from the opposite parties. In view of the fact that opposite party No. 21s the person horn x whose possession the vehicle was seized and as he is also the owner of the vehicle, relying on the principle laid down by this Court in M.S. Jaggi Vs. Subaschandra Mohapatra, and followed, in Mahammed Zariff's case 1987 (II) O.L.R. 283 (supra). I agree with the finding of the learned S. D. J. M. that opposite party No. 2 is the person entitled to the possession of the vehicle. 9. On a perusal of the in pugned order-l find that it is only after duly applying his mind to all the relevant facts placed on record, the learned S. D. J. M. has passed the impugned order in due exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on him u/s 407. Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed