' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No,3 got registered a case F.I.R.
No,60 on 8-7-1999 against the petitioner and one Allah Ditta wherein she alleged that her brother Mumtaz Ali purchased Car No,4384/FBH from the petitioner for consideration of Rs,1,75,000 and open transfer letter was handed over to him. The car was taken into possession by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner and respondent No,3 filed applications for obtaining Supurdari of car in question, before the competent Court. The learned Magistrate accepted the application of the petitioner and rejected the application of respondent No,3 vide order, dated 16-10-1999.
Respondent No,3 being aggrieved filed revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin who dismissed the same and modified the order of Ilaqa Magistrate to the extent that Supurdari of car be given to the petitioner subject to furnishing bank guarantee amounting to Rs,1,75,000 as the civil suit is pending between the parties regarding ownership of car, hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is very harsh and is against the law laid down by the superior Courts. He further submits that the petitioner has only source of income through the vehicle in question but this fact was not considered by the Additional Sessions Judge. In support of his contention he relied upon Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2148.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order and modified the order of the Magistrate after perusing the record. During the investigation Allah Ditta the original owner has been declared innocent. The said owner had also made statement that he sold the car to Mumtaz. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. The similar controversy was decided by this Court in Mrs. Farhat Jabeen's case PLD 1981 Lah.
588. After considering the case-law on the subject and laid down the following principle:-- "The result is that pending the criminal proceedings or until both the parties get their title established from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the disputed Car No,LEY-4440 should be kept in private garrage under the custody of the police and both the petitioner as well as respondent No,3 shall equally share the expenses in this respect."
' The aforesaid judgment was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Asif Bajwa's case 1994 SCM R 70 and after considering all the case-law on the subject laid down the following principle:-- ' "We may observe that it will be open. To the parties to apply jointly to the Court below for getting car in dispute sold and for getting its sale proceeds invested in the Khas Deposit Certificates or in some other Government Bank's Scheme subject to the condition that the person who would be held to be entitled to the car, would be entitled to the sale proceeds of the car and the profit accrued thereon."
In the interest of justice and fair play the order of both the tribunals below are set aside meaning thereby the applications filed by both the parties are pending adjudication before the Court below/before the learned Magistrate who is directed to decide the applications of the parties in terms of the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Asif Latif Bajwa supra's case.
Parties are directed to appear before the Court below/trial Court on 9-10-2000. He is further directed to invest sale proceeds in the Khas Deposit Certificates or in some profit bearing scheme of National Saving Centre. The party who succeeds in Civil Court be entitled to the sale proceeds of the car and profit accrued thereon.
' In view of what has been discussed above the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid terms.