' On an application filed 6y the petitioner that he had purchased Suzuki motor car bearing No, SLG- 9275, the Registration Authority under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 transferred the ownership of the said vehicles in its record in the name of the petitioner in August, 1992.
2. Later on, an application was filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 stated that the order of transfer of ownership had been procured by the petitioner from respondent No, 1 by practicing fraud and submitting forged and fabricated documents. That application was allowed by respondent No, 1 on 13-3-1995. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition.
3. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition has been raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 who has pointed out that the petitioner has an adequate remedy of filing an appeal before the Director under section 36 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of respondent No,1 has been passed under section 12 (2) of C.P.C. And not under sections 34 and 35 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and as such, no appeal is competent before the Director.
5. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although it is correct that respondent No,1 while passing-impugned order had observed that the power which he was exercising was under section 12(2) of C.P.C. But as admittedly Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings before respondent No,1, this order must be taken to have been passed under section 34 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and not under section 12(2) of C.P.C.. That being so, the order was appealable under section 36 of the Act. The petitioner may even now, if so advised, avail of that remedy.