Ld. Adv. for the complainant is present today and files hazira. This case is filed by one Sri Ajaya Kumar Nayak against the Ops Hinduja Leyland Finance, Bhubaneswar(Op-1) and Gitanjali Dwivedi, Guarantor(Op-2). It seems from the loan agreement filed by the complainant that Sri Ajaya Ku, Nayak is the guarantor and Gitanjali Dwivedi is the borrower. As per contract Act, Section-128 liability as guarantor is co-extensive with that of the borrower, both borrower-guarantor are jointly and equally liable to repay the loan amount. There is no provision in C.P.Act that either borrower or guarantor can file a case against one another. It is stated in the complaint petition that the complainant is a defaulter. In a recent judgement reported in Surya Pal Singh-vrs- Sidha Vinayaka Motors & another, the Honbl’e Apex Court of India held that “under the Hire purchase Agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who take the loan retains possession of the vehicle only as a bailey/trustee. Therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of installment has always been unheld to be legal right of the financier. The said decision supports the contention of the Ops that in the event of any default on the part of the complainant to pay even ne installment it would be legal for them to reposed the vehicle for which they financed and also to raise the balance of loan amount in lump sum.” There is no averment in the complaint petition that case of action arose in this local jurisdiction. The Complainant has also failed to fulfil the section-11(2) a,b,c of the C.P.Act.1986. From the above circumstances, we feel it proper that the complaint petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Hence, it is rejected.