JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 17.1.96 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Desurf whereby he handed over the interim custody of Jeep No. RJ 16/C-0760 to respondent Devi Singh. 2. Mr. Mehta contended that the petitioner, being a registered owner of the Jeep, was entitled to have its interim custody. His submission was that there was Hire Purchase Agreement under which Jeep was handed over to respondent no. 2 on 30.5.95 but as the respondent failed to pay the instalment, the petitioner was entitled to repossess the vehicle. 3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, on the other hand, contended that it was not a case of Hire Purchase Agreement but there was out right sale and as the vehicle was taken away forcibly from the possession of the brother of the respondent, the respondent is entitled to have its interim custody and the learned Magistrate has rightly delivered the vehicle to him. 4. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that there was Hire Purchase Agreement between the parties. The facts which have appeared in the order of the learned Magistrate indicate that there was a sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 2 on 30.5.95 for Rs. 69,000/- and the amount was to be paid by monthly instalments. It is not disputed that the vehicle was in possession of the brother of respondent when it was taken away forcibly by the petitioner for which a case has been registered by the brother of the respondent no. 1 under section 420 IPC. It may be correct that the respondent failed to pay the instalments but that would not make the petitioner entitled to get the possession of the vehicle. The order of the learned Magistrate is based on the two rulings of this Court. It cannot be said that the order is illegal or improper. It may be true that the Jeep is still in the name of the petitioner in the Registration Department and there will be difficulty to the respondent no. 2 to ply the Jeep but then it will be his problem. Keeping in view the sale deed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. It may be true that the Jeep is still in the name of the petitioner in the Registration Department and there will be difficulty to the respondent no. 2 to ply the Jeep but then it will be his problem. Keeping in view the sale deed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 2, and the fact that it was forcibly taken from the possession of the brother of the respondent the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in giving the interim custody of the Jeep to the respondent. 5. There being no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******