PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.~ Respondent No 3 Muhammad Muzammal obtained Suzuki Cultus car bearing No. 1118- MNA on lease from NIB -respondent No. 2, statedly a lease vide Iqramama dated 9.1.2009. The respondent No. 3 also statedly executed certainer other documents including authority letter and transfer deed in favour of the petitioner.
2. The grievance being voiced through this writ petition is that respondent No. 2 is delaying issuance of clearance letter and inspire of the fact that petitioner has started making payments and regular instalments. He is being denied the nights of owner of the vehicle. His further grievance is that since the instalments could not be paid on account of accident and the car remained parked in the work-shop for a month, therefore, the bank illegally and unjustifiably started harassing the petitioner and intends to snatch the car from the petitioner.
3. I have heard learned counsel for. The petitioner at quite some length and perused the documents attached with this petition with his able assistance. Admittedly the car in question was obtained on lease by respondent No. 3 from NIB Bank, that the instalments as per undertaking commitment are not being paid; thus the respondent No. 3 is admittedly a defaulter. The petitioner claims that he is subsequent bona fide purchaser and the Bank in view of peculiar circumstances could not take into possession the car in question is unfounded for the simple reason that respondent No. 3 obtained the car in consideration of financial facility and had undertaken to make the payment thereof in instalments, which admittedly have not been paid. The Bank authorities, therefore, were fully justified under the law to initiate action against respondent No. 3 and proceeded to take other action under the law. The petitioner who claims to be a bona fide purchaser cannot claim any exemption from such legal action for the simple reason that he by purchasing the car in question has merely stepped into the shoes of the alleged vendor/respondent No. 3, who could not transfer a better title than the one he himself possessed.
Therefore the vendor being a defaulter under the law subsequent purchaser shall also .Be deemed to be defaulter. Thus, the action shall also be deemed to be a defaulter. Thus, the action initiated toy the Bank is absolutely within the authority vested in them and is justified. Therefore, this petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.