2005 PLP 3295 (YLR)

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.

This petition under, section 561-A, Cr.P.C. seeks to assail the order of Mr. Sana Ullah Malik, Additional District Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi dated 2-4-2004. Through that order the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision filed before him against the order of the Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi dated 14-11-2003. The learned Magistrate had allowed Superdari to the present petitioner which order was reversed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of' the impugned order. For the petitioner it is claimed that the vehicle in question belongs to him and that since there is a dispute with regard to its ownership the respondents Messrs Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited may be directed to approach the Banking Court of competent jurisdiction. Also that in the case respondent has any claim on over due instalments/principal against the vehicle in question the petitioner will be willing to pay the same after its determination by a Banking Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent Messrs Orix A Leasing Pakistan claims that the vehicle in question is owned by the leasing company which was leased out to one Abdul Hafeez son of Abdul Latif who was a defaulter having paid only four rentals. It is also stated that at the time of leasing out the vehicle to the said Abdul Hafeez the petitioner became a guarantor. Further that it was only on the notice issued to the Company by the Magistrate that it came to know of the possession of the petitioner of the vehicle. He states that if the petitioner has any grievance against the respondent-Company or is willing to pay the remaining rentals he can very well approach the Company or a Court of competent jurisdiction in that L half. However, his possession of the vehicle cannot be legalized only on account of his alleged willingness to discharge the remaining liability towards the leasing company.

3. In support of his submission learned counsel relies upon re: Javed Arshad v. The State and United Bank Ltd. (PLD 1985 Lah. 592), re: Syed Nizam-ud-Din v. The State and another (1972 PCr.LJ 678), re: Jehan Zaib Shinwari and 4 others v. The State and 5 others (PLD 2002 Peshawar 87) and re: Abid Hussain v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, S&GAD and 3 others (PLD 1984 Karachi 269). Also refers to the definition clause of section 2(24) of West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, defining ownership as a person in whose favour/ name a registration with the concerned Motor Registration Authorities stands.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I will agree that the petitioner has not been able to bring home any sustainable legal or factual objection against the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioner who is a stranger to the vehicle cannot be allowed to have the possession of the vehicle or to retain it on vague assertions which are not supported from the record. The title of the vehicle in the respondent as well as its leasing out to one Abdul Hafeez son of Abdul Latif on 12-10-2000 is duly supported from docu mentary evidence. The pendency of a civil suit between the two individuals and the allowing of interim relief by the Civil Court' at Lahore does not in any manner cloth the petitioner with a legal title to retain the possession of the vehicle. Learned Addi tional Sessions Judge having considered the factual as well as legal issues in the perspective of the material brought on record his order is not open to exception.

5. Therefore, this application shall be dismissed. H.B.T./F-120/L Petition dismissed.