B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) CHHATTISGARH Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari Samity Maryadit is a registered Cooperative Society, (hereinafter referred to as the Society ). The Society purchased a truck bearing registration No. CPA 3067 from the applicant Jasvinder Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,40,051. and paid a sum of Rs. 56,500. 00 through a cheque and the balance amount of Rs. 83,551. 00 was paid in cash on 236-1984. The applicant Jasvinder Singh acknowledging the Sale executed a Sale deed on a Stamp Paper and possession of the truck was also handed over to the Society on the same day. Shri M. M. Agarwal learned counsel for the applicant Jasvinder Singh also made a statement at the bar that on/the same day i. e. 23/6/1984 the truck was handed over to the society. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, it appears that some dispute arose between the parties which persuaded the Society to approach the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Durg, seeking relief for declaration relating to the ownership of the Truck. ( 3 ) IN the meantime, Jasvinder Singh by taking law in his own hands exercising muscles practice unlawfully took possession of the truck. Therefore, the Society, lodged a complaint that the applicant has committed an offence of theft. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the Criminal case, an application purported to be under Section 451, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the Society, for taking interim custody of the Truck. Learned Trial Magistrate rejected the said application by order dated 9/1/1989. The Society, therefore, preferred a revision against the order dated 9/1/1989. The Revisional Court however, by order dated 1/7/1989 directed possession of the truck to be handed over to the Society, against which the present revision has been filed. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Shri M. M. Agarwal contended that registration of the truck and other relevant documents stand recorded on the name of the applicant Jasvinder Singh. Even till date, in the office of Regional Transport Authority, name of the applicant is recorded as owner of the Truck. Therefore, the applicant alone is entitled to retain custody of the truck in question. In support of this contention learned counsel cited numerous decisions of respective High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras and Madhya Pradesh. Even till date, in the office of Regional Transport Authority, name of the applicant is recorded as owner of the Truck. Therefore, the applicant alone is entitled to retain custody of the truck in question. In support of this contention learned counsel cited numerous decisions of respective High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras and Madhya Pradesh. ( 6 ) NO doubt, ordinarily the person on whose name registration of the vehicle is recorded in the R. A. T. , is alone entitled for interim custody of the vehicle during pendency of the Trial. But where handing over of possession of the vehicle to the Vendee in consequence of a transaction is admitted by the Vendor, and owing to some dispute between the parties if the Vendor, without taking recourse to the law, becomes a judge of his own cause and takes back the possession of the vehicle forcibly, certainly, this sort of high-handedness practice cannot be encouraged by judicial orders. ( 7 ) IN the instant case once having admitted that possession of the truck was handed over to the society, it was for the Vendor to resort to the legal provisions for taking possession of the vehicle if there be any dispute regarding payment. But the applicant has not done so. ( 8 ) IN the decisions cited by the learned counsel at the bar, handing over possession by the Vendor to the Vendee was initially under dispute and in that context it is held that the person on whose name registration of the Vehicle stands, is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle. But in the instant case, Shri M. M. Agarwal appearing for the applicant has repeatedly made a statement that possession of the vehicle was handed over by the applicant to the Society. As such, decisions cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on facts. ( 9 ) THIS being so, in the opinion of this court, the learned Revisional Court had rightly passed the order for delivery of possession of the truck to the society by its order dated 1-7-1989. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, from the discussions aforesaid, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .