TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26-7-2006 and 2S-7-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on the ground that the same are arbitrary, fanciful and passed on extraneous consideration, hence liable to be set aside.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No,3 lodged F.I.R. No,7 on 9-1-2006 at Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha, regarding theft of Vehicle No,MNQ- 437. The police pursuant to the F.I.R.
Took the said vehicle in possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. The petitioner as well as one Malik Akbar Hayat filed applications for obtaining the said vehicle on Superdari with the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sargodha, who accepted the application of he petitioner on the premise that the petitioner was in possession of the original Registration Book. Respondent No,3- who claims to have purchased the vehicle in question from Malik Akbar Hayat assailed the orders of the learned Magistrate before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. On 22-7-2006, the learned Judge admitted the revision petition for regular hearing and vide order dated 28-7-2006 while observing that the vehicle in question was case property of case F.I.R. No,7 of 2006 directed the police to take possession of the vehicle. The case was adjourned to 24-8-2006 which is still pending decision with the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders of the learned Revisional Court inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner was bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question which fact was borne out from continual possession of the petitioner and was affirmed by respondent No, 3 in his statement before the learned Civil Court at Sargodha on 4-2-2006; that taking over of the possession of the vehicle by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. Was totally illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and without lawful authority; that the earlier owner of the vehicle Malik Akbar Hayat son of Muhammad Hayat had nothing to do with the vehicle in question since he had sold it three years earlier, whereafter the petitioner had become the owner in possession of the vehicle and that by virtue of the order of the Superdari dated 25-7-2006, the petitioner had earned lawful right in his favour which could not be undone by the learned Revisional Court.
4. Learned counsel representing respondent No,3 contended that the writ petition was not maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha dated 26-7-2006 and 28-7- 2006; that the controversy involves disputed questions of fact which could not be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction; that the petitioner was neither the order of the car nor did he have any documentary evidence in his possession to establish his title in respect of the said vehicle;. That the car as well as the Registration Book was not recovered from the petitioner; that the car in question being case property of F.I.R. No,7 of 2006 had been taken into possession by the police from the nominated accused of the F.I.R.; that the Registration Book reveals that the vehicle stands registered in the name of Malik Akbar Hayat, who had sold and handed over possession of the vehicle to respondent No,3 on 10-8-2006; that Malik Akbar Hayat had executed an open authority letter in favour of respondent No,3 and further by virtue of agreements dated 7-1-2006 and 24-7-2006, he had acknowledged the sale of the said car to the respondent; that the said Malik Akbar Hayat had also appeared before the Court of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and had deposed regarding sale of the car in question to respondent No,3.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing respondent No,3.
6. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question stands registered in the name of Malik Akbar Hayat who had appeared before the learned lower Court and produced documents, i.e, open letter of transfer and two agreements executed by him in favour of respondent No,3 to establish the sale of the vehicle in question to the said respondent on 10-8-2004. Thus, for all intents and purposes the actual owner of the vehicle is respondent No,3. It is also not denied by the parties that case F.I.R.
No,7 of 2006 dated 9-1-2006 regarding theft of the said vehicle stands registered at the instance of the said respondent pursuant to which the vehicle was taken into custody by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. From one Muhammad Pervaiz, a nominated accused of the F.I.R. The learned Magistrate while passing the order in favour of the petitioner lost sight of the fact that the petitioner was neither the registered owner of the vehicle in question nor was the same taken into custody by the police from his possession. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question is devoid of any force. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,3 in his statement before the learned Civil Court at Sargodha in a suit tiled by the petitioner for permanent injunction had conceded the claim of the petitioner with respect to the title of the car in question is not sustainable from the record as the statement made by respondent No,3 before the learned Civil Court on 4-2-2006 reveals that the said respondent No,3 had stated on oath that he would not take possession of the vehicle in dispute from the petitioner illegally and forcibly. The statement further shows that the said respondent reserved his right to have recourse to legal means in the said respect and had referred to F.I.R. Lodged by him regarding the theft of the said vehicle. Thus, respondent No,3 had already set the law in motion for the recovery of his stolen vehicle before making the said statement.
7. From the above, it is clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the orders impugned in this petition did not act contrary to the law and was fully justified in holding that the vehicle was case property of F.I.R. No,7 of 2006 and had rightly directed the police to take the same into possession pending disposal of the main petition.
8. The impugned orders are interlocutory in nature as the main controversy regarding the Superdari of the vehicle in question is still pending adjudication before the learned lower Court.
Only a final order can be brought under challenge in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
Reliance is placed on the case of Ghulam Hussain and another v. Malik Shahbaz Khan (1985 SCMR 1925) and also reference is made to the case of Abdul Majeed v. Noor Muhammad and 2 others (PLD 2006 Lah. 649).
9. It is also evident that the controversy essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276). Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court.
10. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed.
The learned revisional Court is directed to decide the case on merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs.