JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seizing lorry bearing registration No.AP-09-U-4849, contrary to the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 and in violation of Judgment of the Supreme Court in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi (Civil Appeal No.9711/2011, dt. 14-11-2011). The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to receive the balance amount of Rs.23,557/-and issue clearance certificate by releasing the vehicle to him. 2. The petitioner has purchased the above mentioned lorry by obtaining loan from respondent No.2 and entered into a hire purchase agreement with the latter. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that as against the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- borrowed from respondent No.2, he has repaid a sum of Rs.2,60,457/- under 24 instalments and that the balance amount due is only Rs.23,557/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged forcible seizure of the above mentioned vehicle. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 wherein it is inter alia stated that it has advanced a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 18-9-2009; that the petitioner was irregular in paying the monthly instalments and that he is due in a sum of Rs.1,05,358/- as on 10-4-2012 and not Rs.23,557/-as claimed by him. It is further stated that as the petitioner failed to repay the instalments on schedule, on 11-8-2011 respondent No.2 issued a notice under RPAD which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 16-8-2011 and that on 19-1-2012 another notice was issued through registered post demanding payment of the balance amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and the same was also received by the petitioner on 21-1-2012 and that inspite of service of notices, the petitioner has not repaid the amount. The counter-affidavit further averred that in view of the failure of the petitioner to repay the loan amount, the vehicle was seized by following the procedure under the hire purchase agreement. Respondent No.2 has also explained the procedure followed by it, namely, that it has issued telegram notice to the petitioner and the guarantor with a copy marked to the Station House Officer, Crime Police Station, Tirupati, on 6-2-2012 and that a reminder was also given on 3-5-2012 followed by legal notice dated 4-1-2013 for payment of the balance amount. Respondent No.2 has also explained the procedure followed by it, namely, that it has issued telegram notice to the petitioner and the guarantor with a copy marked to the Station House Officer, Crime Police Station, Tirupati, on 6-2-2012 and that a reminder was also given on 3-5-2012 followed by legal notice dated 4-1-2013 for payment of the balance amount. Respondent No.2 asserted that it has not violated the Judgment of the Apex Court in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. (1-supra). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 has come out with a false plea that his client is due in a sum of Rs.1,05,358/- and that the due amount is only Rs.23,557/-. I am afraid, this Court cannot embark upon the exact amount due from the petitioner to respondent No.2. If any dispute arises under the hire purchase agreement with respect to the liability of the petitioner, the petitioner can only approach the competent Civil Court for resolution of such dispute. 5. With respect to the submission of the learned counsel that respondent No.2 has no power to seize the lorry, it is conceded that under the hire purchase agreement, respondent No.2 has unrestricted right of entry and recover possession of the vehicle in the event of default committed by the hirer and that the latter shall be bound to return the vehicle in such an event. 6. In Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. State of Kerala ( AIR 1966 S.C. 1178 ) and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. (C.A.No.5993/2007) the Supreme Court heldthat the financier shall not seize the vehicle by using force. While referring to the said Judgments, the Apex Court, in City Corp. Maruthi Finance Ltd. (1-supra), held that even in the case of mortgaged goods subject to hire purchase agreement, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and that till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the financier normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle the financier, on the strength of the mortgage, to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. 7. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has used force. It has issued two notices calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount. 7. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has used force. It has issued two notices calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount. As the petitioner failed to comply with the said request, respondent No.2 has exercised its power under the hire purchase agreement to take possession of the vehicle under due intimation to the Station House Officer concerned. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that the seizure of the lorry in question by respondent No.2 is illegal. 8. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for resolution of the dispute relating to the actual due amount payable by the him to respondent No.2. 9. As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.3095/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.