1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26-8-1989, whereby his writ petition was dismissed with certain concession granted to him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 purchased a Toyota Hilux No.BUA-5264 Model 1983 from Muhammad Khalid respondent No.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000 on instalments of Rs.3,000 p.m. And paid Rs.50,000 as advance under a written agreement dated 4-6-1986. The respondent No.2 paid certain instalments and only Rs.16,000 were left outstanding. Respondent No.2 entered into another agreement with the petitioner to make him a partner of 3/4th share in the said vehicle and its price was fixed as Rs.1,20,000 in which he paid Rs.90,000 of his share to the respondent No.2. Bahi Khan father of the petitioner who was looking after the interest of the petitioner in the said vehicle was murdered by the respondent No.2 and a case under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered against him. The said vehicle was also taken into custody by the police but later on it was given on Superdari against a surety of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner by the Ilaqa Magistrate vide his order dated 19-4-1989.
3. Respondent No.2 filed application in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha, respondent No.1 on which the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,36,000 upto'30-7-1989 and Rs.36,000 to be paid to respondent No.3 in the Court before 20-6-2989 failing which Superdari of the petitioner will be cancelled and his claim will not be acceptable about the vehicle and the same will be given to respondent No.2;till the decision of the case and if respondent No.2 failed to pay the remaining amount to respondent No.3 the vehicle will then be given him on Superdari. This order was passed in the presence and consent of the parties on 5-6-1989.
4. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition disposed of the same on 26-8-1989 with the following observations:-- "In this view of the matter the Court had committed no error whatsoever in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that some more time may be allowed to the petitioner to comply with the direction contained in the impugned order. After consulting the petitioner who is present in the Court the learned counsel states that he would deposit the amount in compliance with the impugned order within one month. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed time of one month to deposit an amount of Rs.1,36,000 in the Court and pay a sum of Rs.36,000 to Muhammad Khalid respondent No.3, failing which the consequences contemplated in the impugned order would ensue."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned finding of the High Court which in our view is absolutely correct. As the learned Single Judge of the High Court after going through the statements alongwith written reply of the respondent No.2 found no error in the impugned order. However, the counsel for the petitioner before the High Court made a request for allowing some time to comply with the direction of the respondent No.1. The learned Judge was pleased to allow one month's time to the petitioner to deposit the amount. It is admittedly a consent order and needs no interference by this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.