2010 PLP 888 (CLD)

MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that act of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by which they have impounded/taken the possession of vehicle Cuore Engine No.R-018379, Chassis -No.751245, Registration No.MLC/9700 owned by the petitioner may kindly be declared illegal, based on mala fide and without any lawful authority and as a consequential relief respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to deliver the possession of said vehicle to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that actually the vehicle was leased out by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to respondent No.4 and later on respondent No.4 handed over it to respondent No.3 through an un-registered agreement to sell and petitioner purchased the same from respondent No.3 through another agreement to sell which is part of the file. Further contends that he paid the installments to the respondents Nds.1 and 2 and amount received by them prima facie establish that impliedly respondents Nos.1 and 2 accepted the sale hence, the petitioner is competent to challenge the order passed by respondents Nos.1 and

2. Further contends that letter dated 30-11-2005 written to one Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan respondent No.4 is against facts and hence as the petitioner neither defaulted of any installment nor committed illegality so, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to deliver the possession of above-mentioned vehicle to him.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed this petition on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition as neither he is customer nor borrower, as per section 2(c) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 the petition is not maintainable. On facts argued that as respondent No.4 was defaulter and so many installments were not paid by him and then the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 after adopting all legal formalities at last impounded/took into possession the above-mentioned vehicle and further contends that same vehicle was sold out in open auction held on 26-12-2005 against an amount of Rs.3,75,000 and this amount was adjusted against the loan up to the extent of vehicle.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. On Court query, whether any agreement to sell creates any right the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that agreement to sell does not create any title in favour of any party. On further query, he admitted that in said agreement the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not party,' however, again stressed that the installments were paid by the petitioner which were received by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and copies of the receipts are on the file which establish the implied consent of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner as owner of the vehicle instead of Abdul Hameed.

6. I have gone through the lease agreement regarding above vehicle between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any condition which permits respondent No. 1 to sale out the same through an agreement to sell to any other party without permission of Bank. Hence, I am of the view that petitioner has no right to file this petition. Same is dismissed. S.A.K./M-358/L Petition dismisse