' MUFTAKHIRUDDIN, J.--This revision is directed against the order, dated 22-7-1985 passed by Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Cheema, Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, whereby an earlier order for the Superdari of car in favour of petitioner Mat. Mukhtar Naz has been revoked and the car has been ordered to be taken into police custody.
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of this petition are that the Car No,RIH-85 Toyota Corrola was the subject-matter of the case registered vide F.I.R. No,176 on 14-7-1984 at Police Station Jhelum, as some bottles of liqour were found therein. On the application moved by the present petitioner Mst.
Mukhtar Naz an order on 3-9-1984 was passed and the car was given on Superdari to the petitioner on furnishing Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs,60,000 which was complied with and the petitioner furnished the said guarantee through Habib Bank Cantt. Branch, Rawalpindi. Subsequently on 16-7- 1985 respondent Abdul Hameed on application praying that the car be taken into possession and he is not interested in it, according to him it was he who has deposited the amount in Bank and furnished the security while present petitioner had in fact got the car in his Superdari vide order, dated 3-9-1984. Abdul Hameed had not impleaded the petitioner as party and the Court too did not care to know that order was in favour of the petitioner and was made on her application, accepted the prayer of Abdul Hameed as a consequence thereof the car was taken into possession by the police.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal' of the record found that the first order of Superdari passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 3-9-1.984 was intact as such the petitioner was the necessary party. Any allegations made by Hameed that it was he who has furnished the security was a matter which could be adjudged only by allowing the parties to establish their respective claim in Court and this could not be done in the absence of Mst. Mukhtar Naz as she was the beneficiary of the order, dated 3-9-1984. In this view of the matter the impugned order is patently illegal on the face of it as it has been passed without hearing the petitioner. We accordingly set aside the order, dated 22-7-1985 and accepting the petition remand the case to the learned Magistrate who is seized of the case and the petitioner shall be allowed to meet the allegations of ,Abdul Hameed, pending the decision the car shall be restored to the party from whom it was taken into possession by the police, subject to the bank guarantee being operative.