1. This is a revision application against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 2nd September 1970.
2. The petitioner No. 1 Mst. Gulshan claimed to be the owner of rikshaw No. KAU-462. It was said to have been purchased by her from one Munshi Khan by an agreement dated 9-7-67. Subsequently this rikshaw was given to Nuruddin on hire basis by an agreement dated 27-3-68 and Nuruddin agreed to pay Rs. 10 per day towards the hire charges. Nuruddin failed to pay the hire charges and, consequently, Nuruddin on demand returned 'the rikshaw and promised to pay the arrears of hire charges in instalments.
3. On 4th October 1969 respondent Ghulam Nabi lodged first report at the Police Station under section 420, P. P. C. In that report it was alleged that he has purchased the rikshaw in the name of his brother Nuruddin from applicant No. 2 Adamji and he had to pay Rs. 2,800. Out of which he paid Rs.
4. 1,200 and the balance was to be paid in intalments and later the entire amount was paid. However, Adamji did not issue any receipt though it was demanded and he adopted dilatory tactics. He, therefore, approached his Advocate and through him a notice was sent to Adamji but no reply was received. One day Adamji called his brother and told him that he would deliver the necessary documents of the rikshaw and then obtained his signature on some agreement which was not read over to him. It was further alleged by the respondent in the first report that when he. Came to know of it . He contacted Adam but - he gave unsatisfactory replies and, therefore, he got- suspicious and consulted an Advocate. On 23-5-69 his driver was plying the vehicle and as the brakes became defective he took the rikshaw to Majid Mistri and as his driver went to purchase the cigarette Adam and his employees took away the rikshaw.. He contacted Adam but he refused to hand over the rikshaw to him.
5. Police resumed investigation and secured the rikshaw from the possession of the applicants. The investigation was still pending when the applicants made an application on 28-10-69 .For the return of the rikshaw. This application was pending when the respondent made an application on 8-11-69 for the return of rikshaw to him. The learned Magistrate after calling for the remarks from the S. H. O. Passed the following order on 11-11-69 "The said property may be given to the actual owner 'verifying the documents of ownership on superdiginama as desired by the police. The same property must be produced if and when required by the order of the Court."
6. In pursuance of this order, the rikshaw was delivered to the respondent. The applicants having come to know about this made another application to the learned Magistrate whereupon the learned Magistrate directed the police to recover the rikshaw from the respondent and the rickshaw was secured and produced in the Court. However, the learned Magistrate directed the police to retain the rikshaw till further orders. Again both the parties made applications for the custody of the rikshaw and the learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments passed the following order ; on 18-4-70:-- "Heard the arguments of both parties. The rikshaw in question will remain in police custody at the Police Station. Any fresh application from either side may be moved for superdginama of the rikshaw when the challan is received. This order will dispose of the application of the complainant dated 2-4-70 and that of accused dated 10-4-70."
7. Aggrieved by this order the applicants filed a revision application in this Court which was dismissed by order dated 6-8-70 having become infructuous as the case had been challaned by the police. However, it was observed by my learned brother Muhammad Ali Sayeed, J. That the applicant may apply to the Magistrate for proper relief and in pursuance of this order an application was made and the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 2-9-70 which reads as under "In view of the orders passed on 18-4-70 the complainant moved an application after the submission of challan and further order was given on 16-6-70 for giving the said rikshaw, to the actual owner on superdginama. No evidence has since been recorded hence this application is filed."
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the State as well as the respondent who was present in person. The learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that the order of the learned Magistrate was clearly in violation of the order passed by this Court on 6- 8-70 whereby the applicant was directed to move the learned Magistrate for passing the proper order. From the statement of facts and the various orders which have' been passed in this case from the to the it. Is plain enough that the learned Magistrate in fact ignored their order passed by this Court. The previous orders dated 18-4-70 and 16-6-70 to' which reference was made 'in the impugned order could no longer be treated to hold the field in view of the order passed by this Court subsequent to those orders. It was, there--fore, necessary for the learned Magistrate to have tentatively ascertained which of the parties was entitled to possession till the case was finally disposed.
9. I, therefore; allow the revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and remand the case for disposal of the application made by the applicant in accordance with law.