' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the vehicle in question was taken into custody by the police from the petitioner on 7-3-1990. Petitioner submitted an application before the Ilaqa Magistrate for obtaining possession of the vehicle in question on Superdari. The Illaqa Magistrate accepted application of the petitioner vide order, dated 8-3-1990, after obtaining report from the police. The police did not hand over the vehicle in question to the petitioner and intimated to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate that respondent No,5 also claimed the ownership of vehicle in question. The learned Illaqa Magistrate has recalled his order on 8-3-1990. Respondent No,5 also filed application before the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 13-3-1990. The learned Assistant Commissioner/S.D.M. Kallurkot dismissed the application of both the parties i.e, petitioner and respondent No,5 and parties were directed to take up the matter before the civil Court and for the time being vehicle No,7009/QAD was ordered to remain in the custody of Police Station Kallurkot till the decision of the civil Court. Respondent No,5 being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bakkar without impleading the petitioner as respondent. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition of respondent No,5 and the order of the learned trial Court was set aside. Learned. Trial Court was directed to hand over the vehicle in question to respondent No,5 on interim custody on his furnishing the security bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court vide order, dated 17-4-1990. Petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. Operation of the impugned order was suspended and police was directed to take the pick up in its possession vide order, dated 25-9-1999. Notice was also sent to respondent to appear before this Court on 15-10-1990. Respondent No,5 did not enter appearance on 15-10-1990 and bailable warrant in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount returnable to the District Magistrate Bhakkar be issued against respondent No,5 for his appearance in this Court on 10-11- 1990. The order, dated 30-7-1991 reveals that warrants have not been executed till 30-7-1991.
Therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued against respondent No,5 for 17-9-1991 vide order, dated 30-7-1991 respondent No,5 did not enter appearance in spite of non-bailable warrants issued against him. On 17-91991 fresh non-bailable warrants were also issued against respondent No,5 for 28-10-1991 vide order, dated 17-9-1991. The Additional Advocate-General was also directed to contact some senior police officials to locate the whereabouts of respondent No,5 and produce him in Court. Notice was also sent to the surety Sher Bahadur Khan son of Fateh Sher Khan for the said date. Muhammad Riaz. A.S.-I. Requested more time to find out the whereaboutS.Of respondent No,5 as is evident from order, dated 28-10-1991. Copy of the warrants had been given to Muhammad Farooq A.S.-I. Who was directed that these warrants were executed before the next date of hearing and the case was adjourned for 30-11-1991. The previous orders were not implemented on 15-1-1992. Non-bailable warrants were again issued to do the needful and notice was also issued to Sher Bahadur Khan surety for his appearance on 19-2-1992. The order dated 19- 2-1992 reveals that Muhammad Farooq, A.S.-I. Entered appearance and stated that non-bailable warrants against Muhammad Iqbal could not be executed as he was not available at the address given. He further pointed out that Sher Bahadar, the surety of the case, had already been arrested in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 90 under sections 406/420, P.P.C. The S.H.O. Police Station Kallurkot was directed to appear in this case on 4-3-1992 on which date he should also secure the presence of Haq Nawaz who was S.H.O. Of the Police Station at the time of passing of the impugned order.
Notice was also sent to Mr. Javaid Anwar, Assistant District Attorney, Bhakkar to appear on the aforesaid date. The order, dated 15-4-1992 reveals that Habib Ullah, A.S.-I. Was directed to convey the order to the A.D.A. As well as S.H.O. For compliance. The order, dated 15-5-1995 also reveals that presence of respondent No,5 could not be secured. Ahmad Nawaz, A.S.-I. Was directed to procure the presence of Sher Bahadur, the surety for his appearance on 4-6-1995. Order, dated 4-6-1995 reveals that Ahmad Nawaz, A.S.-I. Had placed on record the death Certificate of Sher Bahadur Khan who stood surety for Muhammad Iqbal respondent No,5 for Superdari of the disputed vehicle.
Office was directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrants for his appearance for a date to be fixed in the second week of July 1995. The aforesaid orders reveals that the respondent No,5 did not enter appearance in spite of the coercive measures adopted by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,5 did not enter appearance with the connivance of the police. He further submits that police did not execute the warrants of arrest as directed by this Court on account of the influence of respondent No,5. He further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was passed without impleading the petitioner as respondent. He further submits that the impugned order was passed on the concessional statement of A.D.A. Who had no authority to give concession on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The aforesaid orders reveal that the respondent No,5 avoided to appear before this Court. In this view of the matter I have no other alternative except to decide the case ex parte against respondent No,5.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record myself. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was passed without providing personal hearing to the petitioner specially when the petitioner was also party before the trial Court. Therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC 90 and Pakistan and another v. Public at large PLD 1987 SC 304.
In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside meaning thereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No,5 shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Additional Sessions Judge Bhakkar who shall decide the same after providing personal hearing to the present petitioner and respondent No,5 strictly in accordance with law. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has, raised a serious allegations against the police officials who did not execute the non-bailable warrants of this Court intentionally under the influence of respondent No,5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the I.-G., Punjab and D.I.-G. Sargodha Division Sargodha who are directed to constitute a high powered committee to probe into the matter who is responsible official/officer who did not properly pursue the case before the Additional Sessions Judge and also did not implement the direction of this Court and the case was not decided on merits till date, on account of the failure of the police to procure the presence of respondent No,5.
In case any police officer/officer is found guilty then proceedings shall be initiated against him under E & D Rules and also register a criminal case against him. The order of this Court also be sent to the Secretary Law, Government of the Punjab who is directed to constitute committee to probe into the matter qua the conduct of the A.D.A. And in case he is found guilty, then appropriate order shall be taken against him. They are directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
' Disposed of with these observations.