' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.-- Civil Revision against the judgment and decree, dated 23-12-2006 passed by learned trial Judge dismissing the suit of the petitioner for declaration with consequential relief which was affirmed on appeal by learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 19-4-2007.
2. Brief facts are that Toyota Corolla Car Model 1994 Registration No,A-0699 was allegedly purchased by the petitioner/plaintiff from one Hafiz Said Hussain from Shikarpur Sindh against consideration of Rs,4,45,000 and the engine number of the car in question was 2678306 and its Chasis number 9525687. The vehicle remained with the petitioner on open letter and was being plied by him as a private taxi when it was checked by the police on 21-10-2003 and as there was a change in the engine number of the car in question in apparently, the police took the same into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. And when the same was got checked from Forensic Science Laboratory the report was that chasis plate of the car was completely cut and welded. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court bearing number 15494 of 2003, which failed and then on the basis of some observation made by this Court petitioner filed a civil suit, which was dismissed and appeal as well, hence this petition to this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that car in question was registered with Excise and Taxation Department Shikarpur Sindh and the Registration number of the car was A-0699 and submitted that petitioner had purchased the same from Hafiz Said Hussain, however, subsequently, he was not traceable. He submitted that open letter was with the petitioner and the car was taken into possession from the petitioner by the police, therefore, the petitioner through the suit had proved all said facts yet his suit was dismissed and the appeal as well by two Courts below without taking evidence on record into consideration in its correct perspective therefore, submitted that both the judgments and decrees of two Courts below are illegal and he is entitled to the car in question. He submitted that two Courts below have not read evidence properly.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the revision petition and submitted that fact remains that there is no original owner of the car before this Court or before the two Courts below in the due trial of the suit pending before trial Court yet the petitioner failed to produce Hafiz Said Hussain from whom allegedly he had purchased the vehicle in question against the alleged consideration of Rs,4,45,000. It is submitted that petitioner claims to have purchased the vehicle on 21-7-1997 whereas it 'remained in his possession till 2003 when ultimately it was checked by the police and was found a suspicious vehicle, therefore, was taken into possession and ultimately it was found through report of Forensic Science Laboratory available on record as Exh.D.5 that it was a vehicle which was never manufactured by Toyota Company as the chasis number and engine number were sent to Toyota Company who had replied that this vehicle was never manufactured by said company. He therefore, submitted that car in question in fact was in possession of the petitioner through doubtful and suspicious means whereas he failed to produce vendor of said vehicle and submitted that if he was a genuine owner of the car after its purchase from Hafiz Said Hussain he should have got the same transferred in his name which is an obligation under the law on a person in whose possession any vehicle is present. He submitted with reference to evidence on record that yearly tax of the vehicle was allegedly paid at Multan while the engine was replaced from Peshawar and car was converted into diesel which was originally petrol vehicle and submitted that on every thing else a compromise can be made but the petitioner is unable to satisfy the Court that how the vehicle was completely cut and welded chasis number. He, therefore, submitted that there is nothing on record in favour of the petitioner to decree the suit and as such no exception can be taken to the finding of learned trial Court which was affirmed by learned Additional District Judge and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. Onus of Issue No,7 was on the petitioner to prove that he was entitled to the decree prayed for. He produced P.W.1 to P.W.4 and himself appeared as P.W.4. P.W.1 was clerk of Excise and Taxation Department, Shikarpur who produced registration of car in question that it was genuine as per Exh.P.1. In fact the registration was not in issue whereas issue was whether the petitioner had genuinely purchased the car in question from Hafiz Said Hussain whereas no such person is in existence in Shikarpur of said name. The police made hectic efforts by visit to Shikarpur to trace out said person but he was not traced when the matter was under section 550, Cr.P.C. And a writ petition had been filed in this Court against the police action which ultimately failed and on the basis of some observation passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed civil suit as is mentioned by Rafique Inspector Police as D.W.1. In civil suit petitioner was under obligation to prove that he genuinely purchased the vehicle in question from a genuine person against a valid consideration. Second thing which the petitioner was required to prove was that he had got the vehicle transferred to his name under the law whereas on both counts the petitioner failed as in the first case Hafiz Said Hussain allegedly vendor and owner of the vehicle is not traceable and was not produced before the learned trial Court by the petitioner in evidence in support of his claim. Secondly the vehicle was on open letter allegedly with the petitioner and the same was never transferred in the name of the petitioner under fulfilment of the obligation on the petitioner in this behalf. Mere_case of the petitioner is on open letter. The authenticity of the open letter is of serious doubt. There is none on the earth to corroborate the claim of the petitioner regarding open letter with him in absence of production of Hafiz Said Hussain vendor. The car in question remained with the petitioner for six long years almost but he did not get the same transferred in his name. In the meanwhile he changed the engine as the car was originally a petrol car while he purchased a diesel engine from Peshawar and got the car converted into diesel car and plied the same as private taxi allegedly given to Seimen Company with driver. Evidence is of various kinds which one can produce before a Court of law to show his claim for any particular entitlement. In the instant case petitioner relies upon oral as well as documentary evidence. Oral evidence of course must be direct whereas documentary evidence must be original documents in the first instance and in the second the secondary. In the instant case the claim on the corroboration of purchase from Hafiz Said Hussain is lacking. Documentary evidence is also secondary and is of no worth in law whereas it is proved on record that the vehicle in question was with cut and weld chasis whereas engine had been replaced and Forensic Science Laboratory report is available on record about the tampered out and weld chasis of the car vide report Exh.D.6.
The identity card of Hafiz Said Hussain was also found bogus, fake and forged vide NADRA report Exh.D.3. While Indus Motors also reported that car in question was never manufactured by them as per report Exh.D.5. Therefore, both the Courts below non-suited the petitioner as per report Exh.D.5.
Therefore, both the Courts below non-suited the petitioner who had failed to prove his entitlement and right over the vehicle. No exception can be taken to the findings of two Courts below.
Revisional jurisdiction obviously is very limited. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for interference in the concurrent findings of two Courts below. Revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. The vehicle in question shall be handed over to the Government of Punjab for disposal in accordance with law after its forfeiture being unclaimed property.