Your appeal would be dismissed
2) there is gross delay of 19 years in filing appeal
3) appeal is barred by limitation
4) since you did not appear in court exparte order could have been passed by Court
Civil court has given a ex partee decree (mandatory injunction u/s 39 for specific relief) against me in 2001, on a/c of repossession of vehicle. Infect vehicle was repossessed by my principal i.e. Tata Motor Finance. To whom I was associated as a Direct Marketing associate. The complainant has only made me a party. I failed to attend the court hearings. Thus I was declared Ex-partee in 2002. Again I appealed the Honourable court u/s 9 rule 13 that was also decided against me in 2006. Kindly advice how I can challenge the court verdict on return of vehicle, damage against un authorised repossession. (Court has given the decision u/s 39 mandatory injunction for specific relief) Does court decision u/s 39 applicable on moveable property (Vehicle)? • That there was a hire purchase agreement between tata motor finance & complaint. • That we were only direct marketing associate of TMF, • That vehicle was repossessed by TMF. • That complainant has give us EMI that too we acknowledged with our provisional receipts and sent to TMF all provisional receipts issued by us are on TMF record.(we had only extended a voluntarily service to complainant. • That TMF officer had given his statement in witness box in the year 2012 that on a/c of default in repayment they have repossessed the vehicle. And all receipts issued by us, are acknowledged by TMF. Now my lawyer appealed to higher court (additional chief judge)y u/s 96 & 41 on june 2019 that too after more tha 19 years .
Your appeal would be dismissed
2) there is gross delay of 19 years in filing appeal
3) appeal is barred by limitation
4) since you did not appear in court exparte order could have been passed by Court
Whats the remedy.Should I move to High court for writ petition. Since complainant had made me a party.I was only a Direct Marketig Associate of my pricipals
it was a direct dispute between complainant & TMF.Vehicle was repossessed by tmf.How the decision of lower court prove to be null & void as the same was under mandatory injunction u/s 39 specific relief. Vehicle is not a immovable property ?
the issue is what was the complainant doing for 19 years ?
if he was aggrieved by exparte decree passed he should have file application for setting aside exparte decree or filed appeal in HC
You are delayed enough to file appeal agasint MI. Appeal not maintainable. Court has pass ex parte interim order dose not mean that you cannot take part in trail.
Whats going on in case at present. Disposed or pending. IF disposed than can file appeal agasint final order. You should have file writ u/a 227 in HC.
Where were you for such a long time of 19 years??
The appeal after such a long delay is likely to be dismissed.
It doesn't matter the property is movable or immovable the Injunction order apply to both type of properties.
Since you have not attended the court on the dates of hearing an exparte order was passed against you.
If the vehicle was repossessed by the TMF then they may have to reply to the court.
Let them fight against the appeal properly however if they do not have any documentary evidences i.e., they cannot take law into their hands for taking possession of vehicle just because the complainant was default in repayment, they may have to follow due process of law.
There is no writ maintainable.
You have been made exparte hence you may file a petition to set aside the same with delay condone petition, if that is also rejected then you may prefer an appeal or if your involvement is not going to harm you in any manner then you just dont bother about this exparte decision against you.