JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Finance Company against the order dated 7.4.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Cr.Rev. No. 13/2001. By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate (JD), Vijaynagar dated 15.3.2001 in FIR No. 52/2001, and directed Jeep No. RJ 7C 04216 to be given on `supardaginama' to revisionist-petitioner-Hanuman S/o Ganpat, said registered owner of the Jeep. 2. Submissions of the learned counsel are that the impugned jeep was in the name of Hanuman but the same was transferred to Karanveer who hypothecated the same to petitioner-Finance Company and took a loan of Rs. 40,000/-. Said Karanveer has failed to deposit instalments and therefore, the jeep was confiscated by the Finance Company resulting which Karanveer lodged an FIR No. 52/01 under section 382, IPC in Police Station Vijaynagar in which above jeep was seized. 3. Learned counsel submitted that Karanveer filed an application before the trial Court for having the jeep on superdaginama which was refused by the trial Court by its order dated 15.3.2001 because registration certificate of the jeep was in the name of Hanuman and not in the name of Karanveer. Subsequently, another application was filed by Suresh Kumar on behalf of Finance Company for taking the jeep on superdaginama which was disposed of by the trial Court on 28.3.2001 and the jeep was directed to be given on superdaginama of Rs. 3 Lacs to the Finance Company. 4. Aggrieved against the order dated 28.3.2001, Karanveer filed revision petition No. 13/01 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar on behalf of Hanuman challenging the order dated 15.3.2001 by which his application for taking jeep on superdaginama was dismissed. The order dated 28.3.2001 was not challenged by Karanveer or Hanuman, by which the jeep was given on superdaginama to the Finance Company. Learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order, accepted the revision petition by setting aside impugned order dated 15.3.2001 and directed that the jeep be given on superdaginama of Rs. 1 lacs to its registered owner Hanuman. Hence this revision petition on behalf of the Finance Company. 5. Learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order, accepted the revision petition by setting aside impugned order dated 15.3.2001 and directed that the jeep be given on superdaginama of Rs. 1 lacs to its registered owner Hanuman. Hence this revision petition on behalf of the Finance Company. 5. Submissions of the learned counsel are that order of the trial Court dated 28.3.2001 has neither been challenged nor set aside, by which jeep was given on superdaginama to petitioner-Finance Company, whereas aggrieved against order dated 15.3.2001, Karanveer as Power-of-attorney of Hanuman filed revision petition before the Court below, which was accepted by the revisional Court without taking into consideration the order dated 28.3.2001. It was again submitted that though Hanurnan was registered owner of the jeep yet he has not pursued the matter because he has transferred the jeep to Karanveer, who hypothecated the same with the Finance Company for Rs. 40,000/- and has not paid the instalments, therefore, as long instalments are due to the Finance Company, the Finance Company has every right to take the jeep in their custody. 6. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as also Mr. Vyas appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 supported the impugned order. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is admitted fact that Karanveer has hypothecated the jeep to the Finance Company, who is petitioner herein, and has not paid all the instalments therefore, jeep was seized by the Finance Company, resulting which Karanveer lodged the FIR No. 52/01 under section 382, IPC. The trial Court after taking into consideration the rival contentions by its order dated 28.3.2001, has given this jeep on superdaginama of Rs. 3,00,000/ -, which has not been assailed. 8. It is established principle of law that as long money advanced by the Finance Company alongwith interest is repaid, the Finance Company has every right to seize the jeep. The Apex Court of late in Charanjeet Chadda's case JT 2001 (7) SC 226, in similar circumstances, has held that where motor vehicle has been purchased on hire purchase agreement then according to clause (vii) of the agreement, hirer has an authority to seize the vehicle if any time before final payment under the agreement, the instalment falls due and instalment has not been paid. The impugned order dated 7.4.2001 was passed in flagrant violation of established principles of law, causing miscarriage of justice. 9. The impugned order dated 7.4.2001 was passed in flagrant violation of established principles of law, causing miscarriage of justice. 9. Therefore, impugned order dated 7.4.2001 is manifestly erroneous, same is set aside and order dated 28.3.2001, passed by the trial Court is upheld. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Record of the Court below be sent forthwith.Petition disposed of. *******