The brief facts leading to the present petition are that an F.I.R. No.185/89 was registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, on 8-4-1989, regarding the theft of an Oil Tanker, but neither the engine number nor chassis number of the said vehicle was mentioned in the said F.I.R.
Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, Wazir Ali Sub-Inspector, had taken into custody the truck No.PRD-5725 Model 1979 on 8-1-1991 under section 550, Cr.P.C. With the help of Karachi Police and the said truck was brought to Muridke on 10-1-1991. Whereafter, the said truck was given on `Superdari' to Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.1, but on the application of the present petitioner, the said order of `Superdari' was cancelled and instead truck was given into the custody of the present petitioner on `Superdari'. Respondent No.1 had challenged the said order of `Superdari' passed in favour of the present petitioner before Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in a revision petition which was duly accepted vide order, dated 24-3-1991. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.73-Q of 1991 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 14-4-1991, with the direction that the petitioner herein but the respondent in the impugned order of the revisional Court stated above, shall be entitled to the `Superdari' of the vehicle in question on fulfilling all the conditions laid down in the said impugned order, as it has been clearly stated therein that the petitioner/respondent shall be entitled to the `Superdari' on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.3,00,000. While disposing of the quashment petition stated above, this Court had observed that respondent No.1, Muhammad Iqbal, shall not be prejudiced by anything said in the said order to agitate any grievance or to contend for any relief if warranted in accordance with law; as the said respondent had contended before the Court that the learned revisional Court had created confusion by directing that the vehicle in question should be given in `Superdari' to the present petitioner despite having accepted the revision petition.
2. However, meanwhile the vehicle in question had been given in `Superdari' to the present petitioner, while respondent No.1 had challenged the order of this Court dated 14-4-1991 before the Honourable Supreme Court, meanwhile moving the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned for the correction of the order passed by that revisional Court .By substituting the petitioner- respondent No-1 in the said revision petition by inserting the name of the present respondent No.1 petitioner in the said revision petition, as the party entitled to the `Superdari' of the vehicle without notice to the present petitioner.
3. Meanwhile, the Honourable Supreme Court, being apprised of the latest development that had taken place, as stated above, as the learned trial Court had expressed its inability to implement the corrected order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the High Court's order was a bar thereto and the petitioner before the Honourable Supreme Court, but respondent No.1 herein, having failed to gain any relief from the Sessions Court for the same reason, had filed a writ petition and another petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In the High Court in connection with the same matter, had disposed of the case before it with the following observations:-- "We are constrained to remark that now at least the High Court has ample power and jurisdiction to do justice as also to remove hardship:"
Therefore, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, the Court is of the view that as the parties' contentions in support of their respective entitlement of `Superdari' of the-vehicle in question are based on their interpretation/reliance to be placed on various documents including the report of Laboratory etc., it shall be pertinent to remand the case to the revisional Court for the readjudication of the revision petition filed by respondent No.1, as the error or mistake committed by the said Court had led to the confusion in question, resulting in multiplicity of litigation. In this respect, further notice has been taken of the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had corrected the so-called clerical mistake without notice to the present petitioner and without taking notice of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.73-Q of 1991, dated 14-4-1991, whereby the order of `Superdari' of the vehicle in question had already been implemented in accordance with the terms stated in the order of the said revisional Court. Resultantly, the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 against the original order of 'Superdari' passed in favour of the present petitioner by the learned Magistrate shall deem to be still pending before the revisional Court but it is further directed that the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, shall deal with the said revision petition himself instead of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who had dealt with the case earlier.
4. It is further directed, 'in view of the history of the case and in the interest of justice, that the learned Sessions Judge, shall allow the parties to agitate any fresh contention and or to place reliance on any new document in support of their respective case for `Superdari' that may have become relevant to decide the case in the interregnum.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 21-11-1991. The learned Sessions Judge is further directed to finally dispose of the case within fifteen days from the said date.
N.H.Q./G-29/L revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.