IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks the recovery of Toyota Hilux No,J-1597/ N.-W.F.P., Double Door, Engine No,3L3185699, Chassis No,LN107- 0017102, Model 1993.
2. Briefly, it is alleged that the petitioner is the owner of the above said vehicle, which was taken into custody from the possession of the petitioner on 25-4-2009 by respondent No,4. In view of the same the petitioner filed an application for Spurdari of the said vehicle respondent No,3 learned Judicial Magistrate, Police Station Shera Kot, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide order dated 10- 6-2009. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who remanded the case to the learned Area Magistrate for passing a fresh order. On remand the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 21-7-2009 for handing over the vehicle to the petitioner on spurdari and when the petitioner approached respondent No,4, the same had been denied on the ground that the vehicle had already been handed over on Spurdari to respondent No,5 vide order dated 24-6-2009. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle, which was taken into custody from the possession of the petitioner on 25-4-2009 by respondent No,4. It is further contended that according to order dated 21-7-2009 the petitioner has also furnished the surety, of Rs,5,00,000 before the learned Judicial Magistrate. As such, handing over the vehicle to respondent No,5 by. respondent No,4 is illegal; unlawful and without any justification.
This petition be accepted and the vehicle in-question be handed over to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,5 has placed before this Court the order sheet of the learned Judicial Magistrate showing that the .order dated 21-7-2009 was a conditional order. The petitioner was required to submit surety bond of Rs,5,00,000 as well as to submit the original documents of the vehicle and for the said purpose the case was adjourned to 5-9-2009, 7- 9-2009, 25-9-2009, 17-10-2009. On 31-10-2009 learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they have filed the instant petition before this court and the case was adjourned for 23-11-2009. On the said date learned counsel for the petitioner filed power of attorney and the case was adjourned for 12-12-2009 on the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, the case remained adjourned for 20-1-2010, 26-2-2010, 1-3-2010, 26-1-2010, 15-2-2010, 26-2-2010 on account of the pendency of this petition. It is further submitted that a civil suit regarding the ownership of the vehicle is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Ms. Najma Batool), and the next date of hearing is 16-10-2010 and uptill now the petitioner has not been able to provide the original documents of the vehicle whereas the original documents are with respondent No,5. On 22-3-2010 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that in view of the pending application of the petitioner before this Court, the Spurdari application was considered to have become infructuous and the same was disposed of respondent No,5 being in possession of the original documents was rightly allowed spurdari of the said vehicle.
5. It is further contended that since the matter is pending before the Civil Court, the ownership of the same is to be decided by the learned Civil Court. Learned Assistant Prosecutor-General points out that the vehicle number given in para No,2 of the petition is different from that of the vehicle for which the spurdari has been sought. In view of the same, respondent No,5 has rightly been given the spurdari of the vehicle.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. It is quite apparent from the perusal of the order sheet of the learned. Judicial Magistrate wherein order dated 21-7-2009 was a conditional order. The petitioner has not complied with the condition of submitting the original documents of the vehicle and in the meanwhile, he has approached this court and filed the instant petition and thereafter had continuously sought adjournments from the learned Judicial. Magistrate instead of submitting the original papers of the vehicle and ultimately the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22-3-2010 consigned the pending application as having become infructuous on account of the pendency of the instant petition before this Court.
Moreover, the number of the vehicle given by the petitioner in para No,2 of this petition is different from that of the vehicle number given on Spurdari to respondent No, 5.
8. In the above perspective, this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.