MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANW AR, J. Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has questioned the order of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kohat, dated 05.1 1.2019 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was turned down.
2. Necessary facts are that in connection with business transaction between Jalat Khan (respondent No.1) and Shah Faisal, amount to the tune of Rs. 1335000/- was outstanding against respondent No.1, out of which Rs.
4,10,000/- was paid by respondent No. 1 to Shah Faisal, while in respect of the remaining amount, an agreement was scribed on 04.12.2014, whereby the dead line for the payment of remaining outstanding amount was fixed as 25.03.2015. It was agreed between the parties that in case of failure of the outstanding amount till 25.03.2015, respondent No.1 will have to pay Rs. 30,000/- as a compound interest, per month to Shah Faisal till the clearance of the entire amount. Due to non-payment of the said amount within the stipulated period, an altercation took place between them, resultantly , both were arrested and, later on, released on bail. Malik Darwaish and Malik Gulla Khan (now dead) were stood sureties for Shah Faisal. Due to non-appearance of Shah Faisal, his sureties were summoned, in response to which Malik Darwaish produced a Car No. 1124-Lahore and it was parked within the Political Compound till the appearance of Shah Faisal. As the Car, parked in the compound of the then Political Agent Compound, bearing No. 1124-Lahore, was purchased by Dubai Bank and leased it out to one "Faisal Nadeem" on the basis of terms and conditions of "Musharaka Agreement" execut ed between Dubai Islamic Bank and Faisal Nadeem on 01.01.201 1, and in this respect, the latter was bound to clear the amount in sixty installments, out of which, only six installments were paid by him whereas the remaining are still outstanding since August 2011. The petitioner claiming ownership of the leased Car, submitted an application to respondent No.3 for return of the vehicle, which was dismissed. The petitioner assailed the order before respondent No.4 but his revision petition was also dismissed, hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his application as well as revision petition filed by him under the provisions of section 516-A Cr.P.C were wrongly dismissed by the learned courts below , as such, the orders impugned are against the law for the reason that the vehicle in question was neithe r remained the subject matter of any crime nor it was taken into custody by the police or political agent in connection with any crime, thus, the petitioner being its registered owner was entitled for its custody . He further contended that when Faisal Nadeem, the leasee, failed to pay the lease amoun t, he was served with a notice for the payment of full amount as per the agreement but he did not respond to it. Learned counsel added that schedule 2 of the agreement relates to the event in which Musharaka Agreements is to be dissolved and as the title of the asset (Car) has been transferred by Faisal Naeem to the third person, as such, there remains no Musharaka Agreement. Lastly , it was submitted by him that in accordance with "The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the petitioner could directly recover the moveable property , without filing any suit, thus, the application was filed by the petitioner under section 516-A Cr.P.C for custody of the Car in question.
4. Heard and record perused.
5. There is no doubt that the Car in question bearing registration No. LE-1124 has never been taken into custody by the local police in connection with any offence because it never remained the subject matter of any crime or offence. Similarly , no inquiry or trial or investigation is pending in respect of the vehicle in question. Considering the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner deserves for return of the vehicle under section 516 Cr .P.C, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant section of law which is as under:- "516A. Order for Custody and dispos al of Property Pending trial in certain cases.- When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy or natural decay , may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary , order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of."
A glance at the above section would revea l that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the four corners of the above mentioned section of law as the very opening para of the said section relates to the "order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases" thus, it could not cover the prayer of petitioner . Admittedly , there was an agreement between petitioner and Faisal Nadeem, which contains certain terms and conditions for both the parties, the violation of it by either party , would provide remedy alongwith mode and manner in accordance with law. The lessee of the petitioner is no more in the picture as he was not arrayed in the petition as party . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the bar that Faisal Nadeem was served with a notice for violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement but neither the notice was annexed with the petition nor was he aware that when and how the notice was served. However , it was admitted that since 2011 till now no suit was ever instituted against the lessee.
6. Obviously , it is a civil dispute regarding the breach of contract/agreement which would be dealt with in accordance with law of the land but in no case the plea of the petitioner could be considered in the mode and manner as opted by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted that proper way for petitioner is to avail the remedy from the appropriate forum. I have gone through the impugned orders and found that the courts below have properly appreciated the facts and law on the subject matter . When so, the petition in hand, being misconceived and bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.