' ERUM SAJAD GULL, J.---The captioned writ petition has been filed by Ibrar Hussain Jaffri, a representative of EFU, Insurance Company, Karachi, wherein the order dated 05.07.2012, passed by respondent No,1-Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has been called in question.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a Toyota Corolla Car bearing No,LEH/07/7996 (XLI) was leased out by respondent No,3-Muslim Commercial Bank, to respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar on 02.10.2007. Soon after, the said Car was stolen on 11.02.2008 and in this regard FIR No,170, dated 12.02.2008, under Section 381-A, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Shahdra, Lahore by respondent No,2- Muhammad Gulzar. The said car at the time of lease was insured with the petitioner's company EFU, Karachi. Respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar, paid few installments but refused to pay the remaining installments when the car was stolen. Subsequently, the said Car was then recovered on 24.01.2012, by the police AVLS, CIA, Saddar Division Gulberg, Lahore.
3. The petitioner and respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar, both applied for the superdari of the said vehicle to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, whereby the application of the present petitioner was allowed. Respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar, assailed the order dated 06.02.2012, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, wherein the order dated 06.02.2012 was set aside the respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar was held entitled to the interim custody/Superdari of the Car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as 90% payment has been made by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner is entitled to the superdari/interim custody of the vehicle.
Further contended that respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar had defaulted and did not pay the installments after the car was stolen and the whole amount was paid by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the superdari of the said Car.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,2- Muhammad Gulzar, supported the impugned order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and contended that the Car was leased in his favour by respondent No,3/the Bank, hence, he being the owner of the same is entitled to the superdari.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, the Car was financed by respondent No,2 Muhammad Gulzar from respondent No,3- Muslim Commercial Bank but when the Car was stolen, the respondent No,2-Muhammad Gulzar refused to pay the installments to respondent No,3. The petitioner/EFU Insurance Company paid 90% of the amount to respondent No,3-Muslim Commercial Bank and the letter of subrogation was issued in his favour. As 90% of the payment has been made by EFU Insurance Company, hence is entitled for the superdari of the said car.
8. As reiterated above, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 05.07.2012, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Lahore is set aside. Reliance is placed upon E.F.U. General Insurance Company through Representative v. The State' (PLD 2006 Peshawar 19). The custody/superdari of the said car shall be handed over to the duly authorized representative of the petitioner company on submitting surety bond in the sum of Rs:2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) with one surety. The said car shall not be disposed of without orders passed by the competent Court. The said car shall be produced before the competent Court when required. The parties may approach the Civil Court regarding title/ownership of the said car. The order of this Court shall not influence the competent Court, while deciding the title/ownership of the said car.