' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle in question bearing Registration No,MNS-11- 5125 Suzuki Mehran which was taken forcibly into possession and hand over the same to the petitioner without any further charges.
2. Vide order dated 19-2-2014, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to file report and parawise comments so as to reach this court within a fortnight. In compliance of the order of this Court respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed their report and para wise comments on 12-3-2014.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the garb of Yellow Cab Scheme, the Government of Punjab launched a self employment scheme for unemployed educated persons.
The petitioner submitted an application for the same. After balloting due process the petitioner was handed over the Suzuki Mehran Car. The petitioner regularly paid the monthly instalments to the Bank of Punjab, according to the schedule given by the Bank and last instalment was deposited on 23-1-2014. On 31-1-2014 the petitioner was going to Jalalpur Pirwala Road from Shujaabad on the above referred car, respondent No,3's repossessing team stopped the petitioner's vehicle and forcibly took its possession, hence this writ petition.
4. Heard.
5. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner after having availed the Lease Finance Facility has committed default in fulfilment of his contractual obligation and due to persistent default the vehicle in question was repossessed on 31-1-2014. It is evident from the record that the respondent/Bank repeatedly issued notices to the petitioner to pay overdue instalments which were not paid but the petitioner has miserably failed to honour the request. It is also pertinent to mention here that according to the statement of account duly verified as Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891 the petitioner never deposited the monthly instalments on its due dates. According to Clause "14" of the Vehicle(s) Lease Agreement the petitioner has committed default, which is reproduced as under:-- "14.01. The lessee shall be in default of this Lease Agreement on the occurrence of any one or more of the events specified below:--
(a) Failure to pay on or prior to relevant due dates any instalments of the lease rentals, charges or any other sums whatsoever payable by the lessee under the terms of this Lease Agreement.
(b) .... (c) .... (d) (e) .... . . (g)
14.2. Upon the occurrence of any or more of the events mentioned above, BOP shall have the option and the right to exercise any one or more of the following remedies without having given any prior notice or demand after the occurrence of such an event, so that BOP may repossess the Vehicle(s), without the intervention of court for this purpose, the lessee hereby irrevocably appoints BOP as his due and lawful attorney and hereby authorized, it in the name and on behalf of the lessee and without and on behalf of the lessee and without the consent of the lessee to enter into and remove the Vehicle(s) from any place; and; further surrenders right for challenging the same before any court. For repossession by BOP shall not constitute a termination of this Leased Agreement unless BOP so notified and Lessee expressly in writing. BOP may also exercise any and all other lawful remedies that BOP may have by reason of the default of the lessee.
(a) (d) .... Etc.
6. In the attending circumstances, it is apparent from the record available before this Court, the petitioner is responsible for non-payment of due instalments. It is also noted that if a person is violated to any contractual obligation then he has no right to take fruit from using the same in its true perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in taking repossession of the vehicle in question from the petitioner and it seems to be reasonable and in accordance with law and no illegality B has been committed in this regard by the Bank. Record depicts that factual controversies are involved in this writ petition which cannot be decided by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner can approach the proper forum for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, if so advised.
9(sic) The upshot of the above discussion, this writ petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.