JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioners in this petition Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 20.12.1994 passed by Shri C.K. Songara learned Civil Judge (Jr-Div.)- cum - Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh has challenged his aforesaid order whereby he allowed the petition for delivery of possession of Tractor No. RJ 10-R-0779 to the non-petitioner No. 1 - Lichhu Ram on his application Under Section 451, Criminal Procedure Code and also rejected the claim of the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Bheru Ram lodged a complaint against non-petitioner No. 1 Lichhu Ram in the trial court alleging therein that the above tractor was purchased in the year 1992 jointly by Bheru Ram, his son Kana Ram, brother Chimna Ram and Lichhu Ram, by taking loan from Churu Co-operative Bhumi Vikas Bank. The tractor was purchased from Bharat Motor Company. The bail was prepared in the name of non-petitioner No. 1. In the voucher it was also mentioned that the tractor was hypotheticated with the CZSBV Bank, Churu. The court forwarded the complaint to the Police for investigation and the Police after registering a case, started investigation for offence under Sections 420, 403, 406 and 418, Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged that the above tractor was seized by the Police from the possession of Jagmal Singh-petitioner. 4. Before the learned Magistrate rival claims were filed for delivery of possession of the above tractor. Learned Magistrate felt persuaded to order delivery of possession of the above tractor in favour of Lichhu Ram who also holds registration of the above vehicle. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the non-petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has alleged that Lichhu Ram was holding registration of the above vehicle and he made an agreement with the petitioners to sell the tractor to the petitioners by agreement dated 17.7.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 1,71,000/-. Rupees 40,000/- were also received by the seller non-petitioner No. 1 on that day as part payment towards consideration under agreement to sale. Thus, the petitioners were holding the above tractor in their possession on the strength of above agreement to sale. The petitioners were bona fide purchasers inasmuch as they were not aware of the fact that the above tractor was aforesaid Bank. Thus, the petitioners were holding the above tractor in their possession on the strength of above agreement to sale. The petitioners were bona fide purchasers inasmuch as they were not aware of the fact that the above tractor was aforesaid Bank. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the petitioners violated any condition of the above agreement as regards remaining consideration of sale price of the above tractor, non-petitioner No. 1-Lichhu Ram can take civil action. Since the vehicle was seized from the possession of petitioner-Jagmal Singh, it ought to have been restored to him, notwithstanding the fact that registration of the above vehicle stood in the name of Lichhu Ram. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions rendered in Bhim Ram v. State of Raj., 1992 (2) RLW 105 ; Radhey Shyam v. Laxmi Narain, 1988 (2) RLW 610 . 8. The facts of Radhey Shyam's case (supra) are identical to the facts of the instant case. In Radhey Shyam's case, the motor cycle was sold a sale-deed was executed and possession was also handed over. It was held that registered owner was not entitled to possession of interim custody of the vehicle and interim possession was ordered in favour of the purchaser. 9. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner-Lichhu Ram has submitted that Lichhu Ram is the registered owner of the above vehicle and the amount of loan is also being deposited by him regularly. Receipts have also been produced. He also submitted that since petitioners could not have made payment of the remaining amount of sale price they delivered possession of the vehicle to the petitioner No. 2. It is claim of the petitioner No. 2 that the Police seized the vehicle from his possession. Lastly, it was submitted by him that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no misuse of the proceedings and the petition moved by the petitioners must be dismissed. 10. I have seen the documents available on the file. It is not in dispute that Lichhu Ram sold the above vehicle to petitioners by executing an agreement on 17.7.1995 for a sum of Rs. 1,71000/- and also obtained part payment of Rs. 40,000/-. The possession was also delivered to the petitioners. 10. I have seen the documents available on the file. It is not in dispute that Lichhu Ram sold the above vehicle to petitioners by executing an agreement on 17.7.1995 for a sum of Rs. 1,71000/- and also obtained part payment of Rs. 40,000/-. The possession was also delivered to the petitioners. Notwithstanding the fact that Lichhu Ram is registered owner in respect of the vehicle in question and paying loan to the Bank, after the agreement the petitioners can lay their claim for interim custody of the above vehicle and, if the grievance of the non-petitioner No. 1 is that petitioners are not complying with the conditions of the agreement he can persue a civil remedy. 11. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.1994 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, Churu in the matter and it is ordered that delivery of possession of the above vehicle be made in favour of petitioners provided they execute a `supardaginama' in the tune of Rs. 2 lacs to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate and further submit an undertaking before the learned Magistrate to the effect that they will produce the vehicle in question before the court whenever called upon to do so and shall not alienate the same to any one by any mode of transfer, till final decision in the case by the learned Magistrate.Revision Allowed. *******