The petitioner was aggrieved with re-possession of the vehicle financed by the 2nd respondent and purchased by the petitioner in his name and registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The default is admitted and the re-possession too is admitted. When the writ petition was filed seeking settlement of the loan account, this Court had directed the petitioner to produce a Demand Draft for Rs.4,00,000/- [Rupees four lakhs only] in the name of the 2nd respondent. The same has not been complied with, obviously for the reason of the sale having been conducted prior to the filing of the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the possession was taken with notice to the petitioner and the sale too was proceeded with after intimating the petitioner about the aforesaid fact.
WP(C).No.23935 of 2014 - 2 -
In the above circumstances, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )