' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant constitutional petition assailed the order dated 11-10- 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby custody of vehicle with Registration No,LPT-1288 (Yellow Cab Model 1993 bearing Engine No,150054 Chassis No,688853) was ordered to be handed over to respondent No,2, hence this petition.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that one Khalid Jamil reported to the police on 23-6-2005 that documents of Vehicle No,LPT/1288 were misplaced. Thereafter on 5-8-2005, petitioner lodged Rapt No,13 that his vehicle with Registration No,LPT-1288 (Yellow Cab Model 1993 bearing Engine No,150054 Chassis No,688853) was stolen by unknown person. Police took into their custody this vehicle on 29-8-2006 vide Rapt No,245 from Haji Mumtaz Ali Qureshi and initiated proceedings under section 157(2), Cr.P.C. Both the petitioner and respondent No,2, filed their distinct applications for custody of the vehicle before the learned Allaqa Magistrate who dismissed both the applications on 12-9-2006.
3. Both the parties were not satisfied with the decision of the learned Magistrate and consequently they filed their separate criminal revisions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge where respondent No,2 succeeded as his revision petition was accepted and custody of vehicle was ordered to be given to him whereas petitioner's revision petition was dismissed through the same consolidated order, dated 11-10-2006. Petitioner thereafter, filed instant constitutional petition with the relief noted above. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have appeared in response to notice by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record , appended herewith. Undeniably, the vehicle in question was recovered from a relative of respondent No,2 who hatl obtained Route Permit from the Transport Authority. He is also in possession of original registration book which was transferred in his name by the Excise and Taxation Office, Sargodha.
5. Claim of the petitioner that he is owner of the vehicle, documents of which were stolen and thereafter the vehicle itself was removed by respondent No,2 unauthorizedly/without his concurrence, requires determination after recording of evidence and holding a full-fledge trial but this course is not permissible on the petition in hand. Respondent No,2 has already filed a suit regarding his title to the vehicle in question which is pending adjudication before the civil Court at Rawalpindi and the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant No,2 therein. Respective stance of the parties regarding their claim of ownership shall be determined by the civil Court and the impugned order, dated 11-10-2006 has already been made subject to final verdict of the civil Court.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken care of safe custody of the vehicle by respondent No,2 by requiring him to furnish surety bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Magistrate. Scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest without committing any error of law/facts.
6. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was made out. Even otherwise, lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction, cannot be substituted on this petition which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.