ORDER 20.2.2003 — Heard. 2. This revision application under Section 115, C.P.C. is against the order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in Misc.Case No.151 of 2002. 3. Opposite party instituted T.M.S. No.2 of 2001 claiming for recovery of loan granted to petitioner for purchase of a tractor. Petitioner purchased the tractor but defaulted in pay¬ment of instalments due on the loan amount. Thus, opposite party instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of the money. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 4.5.2002 opposite party illegally seized the tractor and has taken steps to put it to auction sale for realisation of loan amount. Petitioner therefore filed an application under Section 151, C.P.C. with the prayer to direct the opposite party to release the tractor in his favour. That application was registered as Misc.Case No. 151 of 2002 and learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur after hearing the parties passed the impugned order on 27.8.2002. Learned Civil Judge observed that the alleged conduct of the opposite party amounts to gross-irregularities. However, the Court below directed to the Opposite party to release the tractor subject to petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousands), within a month and thereafter making payment @ Rs. 16,500/- (sixteen thousands and five hundreds) per quarter till clearance of the suit amount. The public auction was accordingly stayed till further orders. 5. When the suit is pending for adjudication, it was not proper for an institution like the State Bank of India to adopt a different mode of recovery as per the clause No.7 of the agree¬ment. In the event of existence of appropriate circumstance the opposite party could have sought for the relief of attachment before judgment in accordance with the provision in Order 38 Rules (1) or (5) of the C.P.C., as the case may be. Seizure of the tractor has not been made with the permission of the Court nor such fact was reported to the Court. The suit is still subjudice. Therefore, learned Civil Judge should not and could not have directed to the petitioner to make payment towards satisfaction of the claimed amount. That amounts to prejudging the issue before commencement of hearing of the suit. The suit is still subjudice. Therefore, learned Civil Judge should not and could not have directed to the petitioner to make payment towards satisfaction of the claimed amount. That amounts to prejudging the issue before commencement of hearing of the suit. Section 151, C.P.C. does not authorise or empowers a Court to pre-judge the claim and to pass order for payment when the petitioner-defendant has not shown to have admitted to the claim of the opposite party-plaintiff. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to record the finding that learned Civil Judge, in the above aspect has committed an illegality and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, it is found to be a fit case for interference by the revisional Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision is allowed. 6. Before parting with the case, it is observed that, if so legally advised, the opposite party may release the tractor and if necessary may file application under Order 38 for attach¬ment before judgment. If any such application shall be moved by the plaintiff, then such application be heard and dispose of in accordance with law. If, however, plaintiff shall not release the tractor, it is open to the defendant-petitioner to seek appropri¬ate legal remedy in proper forums. Revision allowed.