N. G. Nandi, J. ( 1 ) IN the suit for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants to forthwith hand over the possession of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2ce-9077 to the plaintiff and for a decree for Rs. 3 lacs by way of damages and Rs. 38,500. 00 for being damages for the wrongful withholding of the aforesaid car by the defendant calculated at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per day with effect from 15th January, 1994 till the actual return of the car and for mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to handover the records, papers, documents, files etc. belonging to and pertaining to the plaintiff society with interest @ 24% per annum both future and pendente lite on the decretal amounts and the costs of the suit, the plaintiff by this application prays for the appointment of the receiver to take charge of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2ce-9077 which is presently in possession of Shri Kishhni Vasandani, Brij Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE case set out in the plaint shortly stated is that the plaintiff is a society duly registered with the Registrar of Societies under the Societies Registration Act (XXII of 1860) bearing Registration No. S-24565 formed with the purpose inter alia to promote awareness of and adherence to Universal Declaration of Human Rights International Covenants Human Rights the declartion of Commonwealth Principles and other declaration relating to Human Rights made by Commonwealth Heads of Government and domestic instruments on Human Rights in member States of the Commonwealth. That the object was to gather, evaluate and disseminate information and in the process to draw attention to progress and set back in various fields of human rights; that the plaintiff appointed defendant No. 1 vide its letter dated 11. 3. 1993 as a Director with effect from June, 1993. That defendant No. I by his letter dated 20. 12. 1993 expressed his inability to continue as a Director on account of his difficulties and problems. That the plaintiff society accepted the resignation of defendant No. 1 with effect from 15. 1. 1994. That defendant No. 1 raised various false and baseless claims by his letter dated 12. 1. 1994. That defendant No. I by his letter dated 20. 12. 1993 expressed his inability to continue as a Director on account of his difficulties and problems. That the plaintiff society accepted the resignation of defendant No. 1 with effect from 15. 1. 1994. That defendant No. 1 raised various false and baseless claims by his letter dated 12. 1. 1994. That during the service tenure defendant No. 1 was also provided by the plaintiff society with a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2ce-9077 and the said car has been in the use of defendant No. 1 since September, 1993 in his capacity of Director of the plaintiff. That the said car belongs to the plain tiff society and is owned by it. The said car was purchased under a Special Manufacturers Quota from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. , for the purposes of the plaintiff society only; that defendant No. 1 has admitted that the car in question is the property of the plaintiff society; that after the resignation defendant No. 1 has no right to deal with the car in question or to use the same for his peronsal use and after the acceptance of resignation defendant No. I was liable to forthwith restore the possession of the car to the plaintiff society. That the acceptance of defendant No. 1 resignation and inspite of various requests of the plaintiff society for the return of the said car defendant No. 1 failed to deliver the possession of the said car to the plaintiff society. That the plaintiff by letter dated 4. 4. 1994 called upon defendant No. 1 to return the car forthwith. That sometime in September, 1994 during the meeting with the Treaurer of the plaintiff society Mr. George Verghese, defendant No. 1 for the first time mentioned that he had transferred the car and was not in possession of the same. That defendant No. 1 had all along given the impression that the car was in his possession and the same would be returned to the plaintiff. That after protracted inquiries made by the plaintiff that it has now emerged that the car is in possession of Shri Kishni Vasandani, A/23, Brij Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi (defendant No. 2); that defendant No. 2 has no right or authority to remain in possession of or use the said car which belongs to the plaintiff. That after protracted inquiries made by the plaintiff that it has now emerged that the car is in possession of Shri Kishni Vasandani, A/23, Brij Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi (defendant No. 2); that defendant No. 2 has no right or authority to remain in possession of or use the said car which belongs to the plaintiff. This act on the part of the defendant is thoroughly dishonest, malafide, illegal and constitutes clear breach of trust. ( 3 ) ONE Shri Mohan Lal P. Vasandani son of Shri Pritam Das Vasandani has filed affidavit on behalf of defendant No. 2 stating that the husband of defendant No. 2 Shri Ashok M. Vasandani is paternal cousin of the deponent and is at present out of India. That before leaving India shri Ashok Vasandani on benalf of his wife, defendant No. 2, who is the owner of the car requested to him to allow him to park her car inside the garage of the deponent till they returned from abroad; that according to the best of information and knowledge that the car is belonged to defendant No. 2 who purchased the same from defendant No. 1 on orabout 22. 4. 1994 for a sale consideration of Rs. l,85,000. 00. That defendant No. 2 is the bonafide purchaser of the car for the valuable consideration; that after purchasing the car defendant No. 2 got the said vehicle duly transferred and registered in her name; that the copy of the Registration Certificate bearing No. 058460 is issued by the Registering Authority; that defendant No. 1 also issued transfer letter on forms 29 and 30 under Rules 55 and 51 (2); that the vehicle weas only registered in the name of defendant No. 1 Dr. Kailash Parkash; that after the vehicle was so transferred in the name of defendant No. 2, she got transferred the insurance cover of the car in her name and the certificate of transfer of insurance in her name is also issued and the same had been got insured by defendant No. 2 vide Insurance Policy No. 3131070064304. That on receipt of the notice of I. A. No. 7680/95 on 5. 8. 1995 the deponent contacted defendant No. 2 and her husband Mr. Ashok Vasandani. That on receipt of the notice of I. A. No. 7680/95 on 5. 8. 1995 the deponent contacted defendant No. 2 and her husband Mr. Ashok Vasandani. ( 4 ) THE say of defendant No. 1 is that defendant No. 2 is the purchaser of the car in question on payment of sale consideration of Rs. 1,85,000. 00 to defendant No. I who was the registered owner of the vehicle and after the purchase of the car from defendant No. 1, defendent No. 2 got the vehicle transferred in her name and the vehicle has been transferred by the Registering Authority in her name and she is the owner as defendant No. 1 was the registered owner of the vehicle in question. That in terms of the understanding with defendant No. 1, CHRI, London was to send full payment in foreign exchange directly to Maruti Udyog Ltd. s Bank account by 30. 8. 93 when this did not happen at the instance of the Chairman, defendant No. 1 had to honour his commitments and made payments by loan from the account of Mrs. Prakash and his personal account by crossed cheques directly to the Company on 31st August/1st September, 1993; that all the payments were made by defendant No. 1 to the company by way of various cheques; that the allotment under the Special Manufacturers Quota from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. would merely give earlier delivery; that defendant No. 1 in his personally capacity had to give a certificate that he did not require a car under it during the preceding three years. That the car would not become the property of CHRI; that the plaintiff has no interest in the car after a gap of 16 months and the sole purpose is to harass and settle scores out of vindictiveness by the office bearers by dragging defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to the present proceedings. That the car belongs to defendant No. 2 and during her absence the same was kept in the custody of Mr. M. P. Vasandani. That the car belongs to defendant No. 2 and during her absence the same was kept in the custody of Mr. M. P. Vasandani. In substance the say of defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff is not the owner of the car and the car was purchased by defendant No. 1 with his personal funds; that he was the registered owner and that the same has been sold to defendant No. 2 and now she is the owner of the car; that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with a view to harass the defendants and to settle scores against defendant No. 1. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Rohtagi, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the car in question was given to defendant No. 1 in his capacity as the Director of the plaintiff society and the same was liable to be returned to the plaintiff society by defendant No. 1 before leaving the plaintiff society; that the concept of bonafide purchaser for value cannot be invoked in case of movable property and the principles of caveatemptor buyer beware would apply. That the car has been purchased in the Director s Special Quota. That defendant No. 1 could not have sold the car. That defendant No. 1 has admittedly sold the car to defendant No. 2 for Rs. l,85,000. 00. As against this it is submitted by Mr. Surya Kant, learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff society has no authority or interest with the car as the car was purchased by this defendant from his own funds and that the defendant is the registered owner; that the plaintiff society is not the owner of the car. It is submitted by Mr. M. Wadhwani, learned Counsel for defendant No. 2 that defendant No. 2 is the bonafide purchaser; that the vehicle was registered in the name of defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 1 has given an undertaking to the Registering Authority that defendant No. 1 is the registered owner. It is submitted by Mr. M. Wadhwani, learned Counsel for defendant No. 2 that defendant No. 2 is the bonafide purchaser; that the vehicle was registered in the name of defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 1 has given an undertaking to the Registering Authority that defendant No. 1 is the registered owner. That defendant No. 2 thereafter purchased the car from defendant No. 1 for which defendant No. I issued the receipt and also signed transfer form and thereafter the vehicle came to be registered in the name of defendant No. 2; that there is no name of the plaintiff recorded with the Registering Authority for this car; that defendant No. 2, had not to make any more enquiry as the vehicle was registered in the name of defendant No. 1. That the remedy would be a suit for reversion/damages against defendant No. 1 and the present suit is not maintainable; that there is a delay in filing the suit as defendant No. 1 ceased to be the Director with the plaintiff society with effect from 15. 1. 1994 and on plaintiff s own that defendant No. 1 vide his letter dated 7. 10. 1994 informed that the vehicle is sold away; that defendant No. 2 is not concerned with the disputes, if any, between plaintiff society and defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is the registered owner. ( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 has produced receipt Annexure-I suggesting payment of Rs. l,85,000. 00 to defendant No. 1 for the purchase of Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL 2 CE -9077. It is suggested from this receipt that defendant No. 1 stated that he is the sole owner of the car registered in his name on 17. 09. 93 and the car is free from of all encumbrances. Annexure-II is the copy of Form No. 23 (CMV RULES 48) which is the form of Certificate of Registration. The registered number of the vehicle is DL 2 CE-9077 registered on 17-09-93. The owner s name and address is of defendant No. 2. Vehicle Class is shown to be a car having Chassis No. 590657 duly registered with the Registering Authority. The said car is transferred on 05-05-94. Thus the Maruti Car bearing No. DL 2 CE-9077 has been transferred in the name of defendant No. 2 on 05-05-94. The owner s name and address is of defendant No. 2. Vehicle Class is shown to be a car having Chassis No. 590657 duly registered with the Registering Authority. The said car is transferred on 05-05-94. Thus the Maruti Car bearing No. DL 2 CE-9077 has been transferred in the name of defendant No. 2 on 05-05-94. That Annexure-4 is the copy of Form No. 29 addressed to the Registering Authority by defendant No. 1 stating that the Maruti Car bearing No. DL 2 CE-9077, Chassis No. 590657 has been sold on 1st April, 1994 to defendant No. 2. It is further stated that the registration certificate and insurance certificate have been handed over to the transferee. That Annexure-5 is the copy of Form No. 30 for the transfer of ownership of a Motor Vehicle. Annexure-6 is the copy of the issurance certificate in favour of defendant No. 2 that the said vehicle has been insured by The New India Assurance Company Limited. Page-4 with the plaintiff s list is the copy of the minutes of the Fourth Executive Committee meeting of the plaintiff society held on27. 01. 1994. Item No. 2 therein relates to settlement of claims and dues with Mr. Kailash Prakash (defendant No. 1 ). In para 2. 1 thereof it has been stated that all other charges and assets of CHRI, including CHRI Bank account cheque book, car, computer, electronic tywriters, tiles etc. have not been returned by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff society. Page-7 is the copy of the meeting of the Sixth Executive Committee meeting held on 11th February, 1994. At para-2. 5 as regards disposal of CHRI s Maruti car, the Chairman offered to take up the matter with Maruti Udyog Limited for obtaining an expeditious decision. Page-28 is the copy of the letter dated 04. 04. 94 by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 wherein it is stated that the defendant was bound to hand over charge and as part of this process return all the assets and properties of CHRI, including the Maruti Car. Page-29 is the copy of the letter dated 8. 1. 1994 by defendant No. 1 on the letter head of the plaintiff society addressed to Mr. Bhargava, Chairman, Maruti Udyog Limited. Page-29 is the copy of the letter dated 8. 1. 1994 by defendant No. 1 on the letter head of the plaintiff society addressed to Mr. Bhargava, Chairman, Maruti Udyog Limited. In this letter it has been specifically stated that the Maruti Car 800 the company allotted in August, 1993 for the use of the Director, Commonwealth Human Rights as the Director of CHRI, defendant No. 1 has been using it since 18th September, 1993 when it was delivered. Page-31 is the copy of the invoice suggesting the name of defendant No. 1, Director CHRI. Page-35 is the copy of the letter by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 suggests the dispute regarding dues payable to defendant No. 1. It also indicates the payment of 500. 00 by CHRI London to defendant No. 1 before defendant No. 1 joining the plaintiff society at Delhi and that CHRI has no desire to keep back defendant legitimate dues and is kept to resolve the outstanding issues at the earliest. Page-37-A is the copy of the letter dated 12. 04. 94 by defendant No. I to Mr. Kuldip Nayar the office bearer suggesting that it was decided in the meeting of 20. 12. 93 that the defendant s dues will be finalised by Mr. Nayar and George and that is why the defendant met them in January and March when it was also decided that the car he sold presumbaly to clear defendant s dues. . . . . . . . . presumbaly that against the dues and claims of over Rs. 2,35,000. 00 plus 3000 claim for salary at UK rate for June, 1993 before defendant only had the car whose depreciated value at 20% depreciation comes to about Rs. l,70,000. 00 and its value cannot be more than Rs. 1,85,000. 00. It is further stated that the members did not know that the car is not entirely CHRI London s property because Rs. 40,000. 00 of Mrs. Prakash vide cheque No. 591914 on SBI, Rail Bhawan and Rs. 29,210. 00 of the defendant were invested. Page-38-A is the copy of the brief note dated 10. 04. 94. This indicates the settlement suggested by the defendant with regard to his claims against the depreicated value of the car at Rs. l,75,000. 00 Rs. l,85,000. 00 maximum. Prakash vide cheque No. 591914 on SBI, Rail Bhawan and Rs. 29,210. 00 of the defendant were invested. Page-38-A is the copy of the brief note dated 10. 04. 94. This indicates the settlement suggested by the defendant with regard to his claims against the depreicated value of the car at Rs. l,75,000. 00 Rs. l,85,000. 00 maximum. Page-44 is the copy of the letter dated 6th October, 1994 by the defendant to the office bearer Mr. George Verghese. It has been stated in this letter that in the reply by the defendant to the plaintiff s letter dated 6. 9. 1994, the defendant has informed that against defendant s dues of over Rs. 2,35,000. 00 the car was disposed off in April, 1994 for Rs. l,85,000. 00 after offering it to Mr. Soli Sorabjee (Chairman of plaintiff firm) at depreciated value. ( 7 ) ALONGWITH the application under Order 25, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code by defendant No. 2, Annexure-9 is the copy of Form 23 (See CMV Rule 48) Form of Certificate of Registration wherein the number of the vehicle is DL 2ce 9077 and the owner s name is Kailash Prakash i. e. defendant No. 1, Car is Saloon Maruti with Chassis No. 590657and Engine No. 884161 and the date of Registration is 17. 09. 93. This suggests that the car was registered in the name of defendant No. 1 as the owner. Annexure- 10 is the copy of the letter dated 31st December, 1993 by defendant No. 1 to the Chairman of the Executive Committee, CHRI wherein it is stated thatthe defendant would like to dispose off his car after the defendant demit office on 15. 01. 1994 and would like to make the first offer to the plaintiff that it is a brand new car with A. C. which will have run for less than 4 months. The plaintiff has been requested to decide the price against landed cost and defendant further requested to send the cheque for whatever price the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the plaintiff society considered fair after depreciation. The defendant in his letter has suggested the price of Rs. l,95,000. 00 including road tax and insurance. It ispertinent to note that after this letter the defendant requested for demitting the office was accepted with effect from 15. 01. 94. The defendant in his letter has suggested the price of Rs. l,95,000. 00 including road tax and insurance. It ispertinent to note that after this letter the defendant requested for demitting the office was accepted with effect from 15. 01. 94. The balance sheet in Form-19 at page-23 suggests that defendant No. 1 is shown to be the creditor of the plaintiff society to the extent of Rs. 1,25,103. 70 whereas in the fixed assets Maruti Car for Rs. 2,01,690. 00 has been shown. ( 8 ) ALL the correspondence referred to above suggest that the Maruti Car in question was booked in the name of the plaintiff society in the Director s Special Quota. It is suggested that in September, 1993 the time came for the purchasing of the car by the society on the basis of the allotment. It is not in dispute that defendant No. 1 was-formally working with CHRI London; that thereafter he joined the plaintiff as the Director with effect from June, 1993. As is suggested from the record the car was required by the plaintiff society for the use of its Director. That defendant No. 1 became the Director of the plaintiff society in September, 1993. Defendant No. 1 made the payment for the purchase of the car allotted to the plaintiff society under the Director Special Quota and the car was registered in the name of defendant No. 1 describing himself to be the Director CHRI. It is pertinent to note that in the Registration Certificate issued by the Registering Authority the address of the plaintiff society is not given but the residential address of defendant No. 1 is given. Nevertheless the car was registered in the name of defendant No. 1 as the Director of CHRI. It will be seen that the letter dated 02. 09. 93 page-32 about II days before the purchase of the car vide page 31 dated 13. 09. 94 suggests that at that juncture no payment for the purchase of the car or for participation by defendant No. 1 in Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative meeting which was to be held on 16. 07. 1994 was decided to be made and this was also the view of Mr. B. G. Verghese as regards the purchase of the car. 09. 94 suggests that at that juncture no payment for the purchase of the car or for participation by defendant No. 1 in Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative meeting which was to be held on 16. 07. 1994 was decided to be made and this was also the view of Mr. B. G. Verghese as regards the purchase of the car. It appears that as defendant No. 1, as suggested from the correspondence was using the car of his wife till September, 1993 and defendant No. 1 was pressing for the car for the Director of the plaintiff society and the claims of defendant No. 1 prima facie appear to be the reasons for the purchase of the car from the funds made available by defendant No. 1 and registration of the car to be in the name of defendant No. 1 as Director of the plaintiff society with residential address of defendant No. 1 and that seems to be the understanding. ( 9 ) THE correspondence referred to above primafacie reveal that the car was in the name of defendant No. 1 though as the Director CHRI and presumably defendant wanted his claim to be settled before the return of the car and as his claim was not settled he wanted the price of the car to be set off/ adjusted against his claim as well as the price paid by him for the purchase of the car and offered to sell the car by letter dated 31. 12. 1993 to the plaintiff society at the price suggested by the Chairman of the plaintiff society keeping in view that it is a brand new A. C. fitted car which has run about 4 months and price suggested by the defendant is Rs. l,90,000. 00. Thus it primafacie appears that the correspondence was going on concerning the sale of the car in question. The question would arise as to why the Chairman of the plaintiff society despite the letter dated 31. 12. 1993 by defendant No. 1 offering to sell the car to the plaintiff society as aforestated did not question the defendant as to how he can sell the car if defendant was not the owner of the car. By the letter dated 31. 12. 12. 1993 by defendant No. 1 offering to sell the car to the plaintiff society as aforestated did not question the defendant as to how he can sell the car if defendant was not the owner of the car. By the letter dated 31. 12. 1993 referred to above it is specifically brought to the notice of the plaintiff society that the defendant is the owner of the vehicle in question and offerred to sell the car to the plaintiff for Rs. l,90,000. 00. From this, the plaintiff society ought to realise that the defendant would sell the car at any time and realise the amount for being adjusted against his claims. At that time the plaintiff should have taken action against the defendant if the defendant was not the owner of the vehicle. The registration in defendant s name seems to be because of the under- standing between plaintiff and the defendant in September, 1993. Even in the letter dated 07. 10. 1993 the defendant has stated that the car has been sold for Rs. 1,85,000. 00 in April, 1994. Even then the suit is filed in May, 1995 and no action is taken till then by the plaintiff. It is suprising that even after the letter dated 07. 10. 1994 (page-44) leaving aside letter dated 31. 12. 93, till May, 1995 no action is taken against defendant No. 1 even when the name of the purchaser i. e. defendant No. 2 was known to the plaintiff at that time. As pointed out above in the balance sheet the Maruti Car is shown as one of the fixed assets of the plaintiff society value thereof is shown to be Rs. 2,01,690. 00. The profit and loss account for the said period at page-23 (Annexure-V) suggests the payment of Rs. 2,01,690. 00 for the purchase of Maruti Car. As pointed out above, defendant No. 1 in reply to the I. A. has filed the copy of the invoice (page-31 ). The plaintiff has not shown as to how the payment of Rs. 2,01,690. 00 as indicated in the profit and loss account in the year 1993-94 has been made. The plaintiff being the registered society and the amount being more than Rs. two lacs, the same could be only byway of cheques. The plaintiff has not shown as to how the payment of Rs. 2,01,690. 00 as indicated in the profit and loss account in the year 1993-94 has been made. The plaintiff being the registered society and the amount being more than Rs. two lacs, the same could be only byway of cheques. Had the plaintiff society made the payment for the purchase of the car then the insurance, registration, invoice etc. would be in the name of the plaintiff society with its address. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act is relied upon. It will be appreciated that the provisions contained in the Sale of Goods Act would apply to the goods viz. movables in general: It provides that where the goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof and does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the purchaser acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller s authority to sell; provided that the buyer acts in good faith and has not at the time of the contract of sale notice that the seller has no authority to sell. ( 11 ) I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Rohtagi, Counsel for the plaintiff that Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act would be attracted in the present case. For the reasons firstly that Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act applies to the sale of goods by a person who is not the owner thereof and does not sell the goods under the authority. The present is the case of sale of motor vehicle by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Section 2 Clause 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines "owner", to be a person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. . . . . . . . . . . . . In the instant case the motor vehicle in question is registered in the name of defendant No. 1 as the owner thereof by the Registering Authority as indicated by theRegisteration Certificate Annexure-6. Thus within the meaning of Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, defendant No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle in question. . . . . In the instant case the motor vehicle in question is registered in the name of defendant No. 1 as the owner thereof by the Registering Authority as indicated by theRegisteration Certificate Annexure-6. Thus within the meaning of Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, defendant No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle in question. ( 12 ) SECONDLY by letter dated 31. 12. 1993 by defendant No. 1 to the Chairman of the plaintiff society defendant No. 1 has offerred to sell the car to the plaintiff from which plaintiff should have taken the hint that defendant No. 1 would sell the car at any time. Thus the conduct of the plaintiff in not taking any action despite defendant s letter dated 31. 12. 1993. ( 13 ) THIRDLY defendant No. 1 sold the car for Rs. l,85,000. 00 to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 relied on the Registration Certificate which indicated that defendant No. 1 was the registered owner of the vehicle and defendant No. 1 having given the necessary receipt and the deciration signing transfer form and defendant No. 2 in any way not aware of the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. ( 14 ) THIS would suggest that Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act cannot be invoked by the plaintiff. ( 15 ) THERE can be no disagreement with the principle of law enunciated in the decision relied on by the plaintiff in the case of KM. Mohambaram v. Ram Narayan Brahmin, AIR 1935 Madras 850, Farquharson Brothers and Co. v. C. King and Co. (House of Lords) A. C. 1902 relied on by the plaintiff have no application to the facts of the present case. ( 16 ) EVEN taking the plaintiff s say at the best it would be a case of conversion by defendant No. 1 and the remedy would be a suit for price oi_the car and the damages, if any. In my opinion no case is made out by the plaintiff for appointment of the receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code and it would not be just and convenient to divest/deprive defendant No. 2 of the custody and use of the car since he has purchased it from a registered owner by paying consideration, unaware of claims / disputes between plaintiff and defendant No. 1. ( 17 ) UNDER the circumstances, the present application for the appointment of the receiver under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code being void of merits is liable to be dismissed. The order dated 22. 5. 1995 and the subsequent orders regarding the Maruti Car No. DL 2ce 9077 also liable to be vacated. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that none of the above observations, shall be considered to mean an expression of opinion of the merits and the contentions of the parties.