1986 PLP 1440 (MLD)

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Questions of facts‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Disputed questions of facts, held, could not be enquired into in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Ismail Kassam for Petitioners. Saeed A. Shaikh for Respondents. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑According to the petitioner No.1 he left his house on 20‑8‑1985 in his car bearing Registration No. 174‑

791. He found the respondent No.3 standing in the street. The respondent No.2 set down in the car and requested the petitioner No.1 to accompany him to his house on the pretext of settling the accounts and the differences, which had crept between them. The petitioner No.1 went with him, parked his car outside the house of respondent No.3 and went inside his house where they sat together. The respondent No.3 demanded the keys of the car from the petitioner No.1 and he handed over the keys to him. Thereafter the keys of the car were demanded by the petitioner No.1 from the respondent No.3 but the respondent No.3 stated that the car belonged to him as he had purchased the same and he was in possession of the sale receipt of the car. The petitioner narrated the story to the Eagle Squad. The police officials accompanied the petitioner No.1 to the house of the respondent No.3 and recovered the car. Statements of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.3 were recorded. The car was handed over to the petitioner No.1 and on checking he found that certain papers were missing. The respondent No.3 produced before the Police certain documents showing to have been executed by the petitioner to the effect that he has received Rs. 50,000 from the respondent No.3 in full and final‑ settlement for the car in question. The petitioner No‑1 apprehended that the respondent No.3 may get the car transferred in his own name by misrepresentation of facts, transferred the car in the name of his wife, petitioner No.2. One Muhammad Zaman A.S.I., Crime Branch seized possession of the said car from the custody of the petitioner No.1. The car has been seized by the police on 22‑10‑1985. The petitioner No. 2 moved an application before the A. C. M., Jauharabad for release of the car detained by the Crime Branch. The said application is pending hearing before the learned A.C.M. and he has not passed any order.

2. The petitioners in this petition have stated that the detention/ seizure of the car by the respondent No.2 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent No.3 has also moved an application to the Inspector‑General of Police that the car has been seized by the Eagle Squad from his residence and that he had purchased this car and the same be handed over to him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also admitted that a civil suit had been filed by the petitioners for declaration that they are the owners of the car in question. The application for the return of the car in question has been made by the petitioner No.2 herself in the Court of Additional City Magistrate which is still pending for decision and, therefore, she should apply to the learned Magistrate for early disposal of her application. As the title of the car has been dispute and the same is the subject‑matter of a civil suit the proper course for the petitioners was to move an application to the civil Court for the custody of the car but this course has not been adopted. The petitioner No.1 has stated that the car has been seized from him whereas the application of respondent No.3 shows that the car has been seized from him. Thus, again a controversy about the factual position has been taken. Disputed questions of facts have been raised in this petition which cannot be enquired into by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel that the car could only be seized if an offence has been committed but in this petition the petitioner wants us to deliver the possession of the car to the petitioner which cannot be done as the respondent No.3 has also claimed that the car was seized from him and, therefore, he has denied the contention of the petitioner that it was seized from his custody. In‑ these circumstances the petition has no force and the same stands dismissed. H . B . T . Petition dismissed.